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
  #201  
Old 03-05-2014, 11:17 AM
beenawhile's Avatar
beenawhile beenawhile is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Rosa
Posts: 1,115
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Dropped mine off on the 24th also.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 03-05-2014, 11:54 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,262
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Given the Richards ruling today, I plan on submitting my application as soon as we know there won't be an en banc review in Peruta.

While Richards was Reversed and Remanded with only a reference to Peruta as the reason, Richards was all about "good moral character". The Sonoma County Sheriff may still deny on GMC, but he may see the writing on the wall at this point. He'd lose in a followup case. I'd gladly be that followup case.

Just keeping my fingers crossed on the Peruta en banc...
__________________
FPC, CGF, SAF, Madison, NRA, CRPA - CCW DENIED by SCSO
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 03-05-2014, 12:34 PM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
Given the Richards ruling today, I plan on submitting my application as soon as we know there won't be an en banc review in Peruta.

While Richards was Reversed and Remanded with only a reference to Peruta as the reason, Richards was all about "good moral character". The Sonoma County Sheriff may still deny on GMC, but he may see the writing on the wall at this point. He'd lose in a followup case. I'd gladly be that followup case.

Just keeping my fingers crossed on the Peruta en banc...
I have the feeling that the way they just referenced Peruta, it's not going to be "If you aren't allowed to deny for lack of "Good Cause", you also can't deny for lack of proof of "Good Moral Character," IE the only way a Sheriff can deny you for GMC is by PROVING you have "Bad Moral Character." What that proof is, that is still to be defined directly, but I feel it falls under the 9th's statement about not getting in the way of laws that deny access to felons, mentally ill, proven to be a danger to self or others. Basically, if you are legally allowed to buy a gun, you should be legally allowed to get your CCW. It probably won't end up quite that liberal, but a traffic ticket or two definitely shouldn't be cause for denial.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 03-06-2014, 4:48 PM
dgc357's Avatar
dgc357 dgc357 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 659
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Well, looks like they're back to the GCS unless I'm reading this wrong. I got my app in on the 27th. I wonder if I will have to provide a GCS?

http://www.sonomasheriff.org/ccw.php

"On 2/28/2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to withdraw their decision in the above case by a decision to rehear the case En Banc. The Court has ordered a stay on the issuance of their previous mandate from 2/13/2014, which only required an applicant to state a need of “self defense” as their reason for desiring a CCW License. Therefore, as of 2/28/14 the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office will revert back to requiring all applicants to supplement the “good cause” statement for the CCW License in accord with Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Policy 219 and California Penal Code section 26150(a)(2)."

Last edited by dgc357; 03-06-2014 at 5:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 03-06-2014, 5:33 PM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

oh well. You either got your app in in time or you didn't. He'll either approve your application justifiably, unjustifiably, or he'll say no like he has in the past. Once this goes to SCOTUS this will be settled once and for all.

My application is in during the period where he indicated he'd issue with personal defense. I used both self defense and another reason. I'd expect to be 'pre approved' per the terms of the application and current law I will not be submitting a doctors note nor letters of reference. Should I be denied for lack of submitting those other documents CGF has stated they encourage people who are denied to contact CGF.

It will look pretty bad on LEO's if one gets 'pre-approved', then denied on any other grounds, other than the background check.

I don't really care what happens at this point.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode



Last edited by GillaFunk; 03-06-2014 at 5:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 03-06-2014, 5:59 PM
oldyeller oldyeller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,460
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgc357 View Post
Well, looks like they're back to the GCS unless I'm reading this wrong. I got my app in on the 27th. I wonder if I will have to provide a GCS?

http://www.sonomasheriff.org/ccw.php

"On 2/28/2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to withdraw their decision in the above case by a decision to rehear the case En Banc. The Court has ordered a stay on the issuance of their previous mandate from 2/13/2014, which only required an applicant to state a need of “self defense” as their reason for desiring a CCW License. Therefore, as of 2/28/14 the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office will revert back to requiring all applicants to supplement the “good cause” statement for the CCW License in accord with Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Policy 219 and California Penal Code section 26150(a)(2)."
Really? the case went En Banc on the 28th? The court withdrew their decision?? Thats news to me, and I have really been trying to follow this thing.
__________________
Wanted- Dillon XL650 blue press parts/conversions
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 03-06-2014, 7:15 PM
TheBest's Avatar
TheBest TheBest is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,034
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

I'm pretty sure the case did not go en banc. It was stayed until 6PM tonight as an extension for those who wanted to petition for another judge to do en banc. I have not read CGF enough tonight to see what the outcome was.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 03-06-2014, 9:04 PM
dgc357's Avatar
dgc357 dgc357 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 659
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

I haven't been able to find anything else to back up the SCSO's statement. They must be completely wrong on this.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 03-06-2014, 10:45 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,262
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

It is stayed for 3 weeks for plaintiffs to respond to the AG et al request to intervene. After that it will be 2 more weeks before we get a ruling on whether the AG will be given standing. Then it may stick or get delayed again. We will eventually get there. But we must be patient. The SCS will deny until this gets settled. The good news is it looks like he will comply once it's final.

But anyone who has submitted an app already will be denied and will have to apply again once all these delays end and Peruta is settled.
__________________
FPC, CGF, SAF, Madison, NRA, CRPA - CCW DENIED by SCSO
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 03-06-2014, 10:55 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,262
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgc357 View Post
I haven't been able to find anything else to back up the SCSO's statement. They must be completely wrong on this.
Well they are wrong that it hasn't gone en banc, but it has been stayed temorarily. But it's just a delay. See these 2 orders:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6971_order.pdf

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...-Intervene.pdf

But this is all procedural bs. IMO we are still going to win this. If you want more details ad nauseum see the multiple Peruta threads in the Litigation forums.
__________________
FPC, CGF, SAF, Madison, NRA, CRPA - CCW DENIED by SCSO

Last edited by MudCamper; 03-06-2014 at 11:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 03-06-2014, 11:09 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,040
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Now that richards is at the same place basically as peruta, which added good moral character to the mix now supposedly out of reach of arbitrary decisions, and assuming we sail through without an actual en banc redo, is there any justification for the 3 letters from friends? I believe they are using those to make a decision on good moral character, but could obviously not understand.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 03-06-2014, 11:47 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,262
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
is there any justification for the 3 letters from friends? I believe they are using those to make a decision on good moral character, but could obviously not understand.
I think they ask for character reference letters just because it's long standing tradition in LE agencies to use these letters for all kinds of things. But really, they are a complete waste of time. I bet even a serial killer could get letters of recommendation. With modern background checks they are unnecessary.
__________________
FPC, CGF, SAF, Madison, NRA, CRPA - CCW DENIED by SCSO
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 03-07-2014, 6:21 AM
TheBest's Avatar
TheBest TheBest is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,034
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

The SO cannot require anything in excess of the standard application except to clarify "good cause".
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 03-07-2014, 6:31 AM
oldyeller oldyeller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,460
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

But they are
__________________
Wanted- Dillon XL650 blue press parts/conversions
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 03-07-2014, 8:15 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,262
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBest View Post
The SO cannot require anything in excess of the standard application except to clarify "good cause".
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldyeller View Post
But they are
Both correct. And they will continue to require things that they legally can't until they either figure that out themselves, or are forced into legal compliance by the CGF sunshine initiative, which won't be for a long time after Peruta is final.
__________________
FPC, CGF, SAF, Madison, NRA, CRPA - CCW DENIED by SCSO
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 03-07-2014, 10:55 AM
elkhorn98 elkhorn98 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can the So Co sheriff refuse your app because you live in santa rosa? I was told that by the SO a few years ago. From what I read they can't. Looks like things will open up real soon.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 03-07-2014, 11:39 AM
beenawhile's Avatar
beenawhile beenawhile is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Rosa
Posts: 1,115
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

I live in Santa Rosa & they accepted mine.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 03-07-2014, 12:00 PM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

If enough of you guys follow the LAW and do NOT submit letters of reference and the doctors note, and when asked why, point to the language ON the application, and cite the code, he may reconsider.

If not, you may get denied, but its likely that if this goes to SCOTUS we'll be shall issue, like the rest of the country.

Follow the rules....you may get your license now. The rest of us WILL get ours in the next 2 years.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode


Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 03-07-2014, 12:10 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,040
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
I think they ask for character reference letters just because it's long standing tradition in LE agencies to use these letters for all kinds of things. But really, they are a complete waste of time. I bet even a serial killer could get letters of recommendation. With modern background checks they are unnecessary.
That makes sense, I'm more wondering if I even need to bother with submitting them post Richards.

I'll probably submit them anyway, just to not rock the boat when I'm applying, but I hate having to do it.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 03-07-2014, 12:52 PM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

well, if the law allows you to buy a gun without 3 letters of GMC, and SO wants a doctors note which will say that you have no physical or mental issues that would prevent you from having a CCW, have 3 of your close friends write a letter, saying the exact same thing your doctor wrote.

Who cares, you met the requirement, equally for both MC and the doctors note. Why would more than a sentence be more than necessiary be OK from your doctor (a trained, licensed professional) and not your friends? Your friends opinions hold the least legal standing.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode



Last edited by GillaFunk; 03-07-2014 at 12:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 03-07-2014, 1:16 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,262
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

On their page the SCSD state that you'll need to complete the training with one of their approved instructors, and they list four. They are:

PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CENTER
PETER KOCH ASSOCIATES, Windsor
JACK JENNINGS, Napa County
RAY HIGBEE, Ukiah

Does anyone have any recommendations pro or con on any of these? Are any of them CalGunners perhaps?

Odd that 2 of them are in other counties. Although Ukiah is probably a plus, since the Sheriff there has been shall-issue for years. Perhaps the trainer there will be more civilian-friendly.
__________________
FPC, CGF, SAF, Madison, NRA, CRPA - CCW DENIED by SCSO
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 03-07-2014, 2:14 PM
Donnovin Donnovin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 425
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

The doctor's 'attestation' is beyond comprehension. First, what doctor wants the liability, second, what kind of doctor? What is it that your average doctor could attest to that relates to being fit to carry?
"I attest that Patient X has a waist, an ankle, and a shoulder with arm attached, any of which could accommodate a holster. Patient was also observed wearing a jacket with pockets. After considerable thought, it is my learned opinion that Patient X could definitely manage to conceal a handgun upon his person."

Most doctors are not going to 'attest' outside of their specialty, especially as litigious as our world is. Further, this info then goes into Big Data via your medical/insurance record.

The only doctor that makes sense would be a psychiatrist, which means the SO has to specifically request a psychiatric evaluation and it has to be a blanket policy for all permits past and future.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 03-07-2014, 3:27 PM
Donnovin Donnovin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 425
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

I found a SCSO policy manual, dated October 2006, containing Policy 219 online via this link:

SCSO Policy Manual

219.32 (a) and (b) are interesting and indicate that their actual process is at odds with their policy to adhere to the PC.

Also interesting are 219.7 (b) (9) which outlines the intent of the physician's attestation, and (10) that testing via psychologist is required.
219.7 (b) Applicant shall submit:
9. Written evidence from a licensed physician that the applicant is not currently suffering from any medical condition which would make the individual unsuitable for carrying a concealed weapon, (NOTE: All costs associated with this requirement shall be paid by the applicant.) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of medical fitness shall result in removal of the applicant from further consideration.
10. The applicant shall also be referred to an authorized psychologist used by the issuing Department for psychological testing in order to determine the
applicant’s suitability for carrying a concealed weapon. (NOTE: The cost of such psychological testing [not to exceed $150.00] shall be paid by the applicant.) If it is psychologically determined that the applicant is not a suitable candidate for carrying a concealed weapon, the applicant shall be removed from further consideration.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 03-07-2014, 3:45 PM
TireTracks's Avatar
TireTracks TireTracks is offline
Junior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinkor16 View Post
I posted this in another thread...

Well... Here's what my denial letter looks like. I'm not surprised at all.



Interesting that the date on the letter is February 10th but the envelope was postmarked February 25th.

Time to appeal.

Anyone know how to appeal?

EDIT: I would love to see a good cause statement that was accepted and compare it with mine.
Is this Rinkor of Rinkor Gun store on Mendo?
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 03-07-2014, 4:01 PM
oldyeller oldyeller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,460
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

Anyone on here a Doctor? Anyone know a pro 2nd amendment Doctor in the Santa Rosa area? I don't feel like even telling my anti-gun Doctor I own guns LOL
__________________
Wanted- Dillon XL650 blue press parts/conversions
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 03-10-2014, 9:12 AM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnovin View Post
I found a SCSO policy manual, dated October 2006, containing Policy 219 online via this link:

SCSO Policy Manual
EXCELLENT FIND!!

The Policy contradicts itself

1) Letters of Reference are not required

219.32 APPLICATION (PENAL CODE SECTION 12051)
(a) Applications shall be uniform throughout the state, upon forms to be prescribed by
the Attorney General (Form SS 8501).
(b) No licensing authority shall require any license applicant to complete any additional application or form for a CCW, or provide any information other than that necessary to complete the standard application form, except to clarify or


219.7 APPLICATION PROCEDURE
(a) Upon request, a citizen will be given a Concealed Weapons License packet to
include:
4. Three (3) letters of reference.
9. Written evidence from a licensed physician
10. The applicant shall also be referred to an authorized psychologist



2) Doctors notes are basically Required, which goes against what was sated above.

219.7 APPLICATION PROCEDURE
(a) Upon request, a citizen will be given a Concealed Weapons License packet to
include:
1. CCW application explanation and instruction sheet.
2. DOJ application form (Form SS8501).
3. Two (2) DOJ applicant fingerprint cards (Form BID-9).
(b) Applicant shall submit:
1. Copy of approved Firearms Safety Course Certificate of Completion.
2. Copy of birth certificate or naturalization papers.
3. Copy of Honorable Military Discharge (Form DD214 or DD256A), if
applicable.
4. Three (3) letters of reference.
5. Completed and signed DOJ application form.
6. Two (2) completed and signed DOJ applicant fingerprint cards (Form BID-9).
7. A check or money order made payable to “California Department of Justice”.
8. Additional agency processing fee, if applicable.
9. Written evidence from a licensed physician that the applicant is not currently suffering from any medical condition which would make the individual
unsuitable for carrying a concealed weapon, (NOTE: All costs associated
with this requirement shall be paid by the applicant.) Failure to provide
satisfactory evidence of medical fitness shall result in removal of the applicant from further consideration.


10. The applicant shall also be referred to an authorized psychologist used by the issuing Department for psychological testing in order to determine the
applicant’s suitability for carrying a concealed weapon. (NOTE: The cost of
such psychological testing [not to exceed $150.00] shall be paid by the
applicant.) If it is psychologically determined that the applicant is not a
suitable candidate for carrying a concealed weapon, the applicant shall be removed from further consideration.



I would encourage you ALL to submit one of these, just to help the cause, but especially if you have applied

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/get...sue-reporting/

Here is the sheriff's policy

Sheriff Official Policy
http://www.scdirectaction.org/copwat...-so-ver-3a.pdf

Website Policy
http://www.sonomasheriff.org/ccw.php
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode



Last edited by GillaFunk; 03-10-2014 at 10:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 03-11-2014, 4:11 PM
Holy Dawg Holy Dawg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The policy you have posted is outdated. It was revised/updated in December 2012. Very dangerous, and irresponsible, to publish bad info on a subject as important as this...
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 03-11-2014, 4:16 PM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Not nearly as irresponsible as knowing the content is outdated, insulting someone about posting it, yet not posting the update, or at least a link to it.

But everyone has an opinion.

Not that it matters; that was Holy Dawgs one and ONLY post after joining TODAY.
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode



Last edited by GillaFunk; 03-11-2014 at 5:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 03-11-2014, 4:29 PM
Donnovin Donnovin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 425
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Dawg View Post
The policy you have posted is outdated. It was revised/updated in December 2012.
Thanks for the heads up!

Do you have a link, or feedback on any ccw related revisions? That would actually be helpful; or, was that not your intent?

My sense is that the 'alleged' revisions to SCSO CCW policy, if any, didn't bring it into compliance with the PC.

Last edited by Donnovin; 03-12-2014 at 2:08 PM.. Reason: relevance
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 03-11-2014, 5:03 PM
GillaFunk's Avatar
GillaFunk GillaFunk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Penngrove, CA (Sonoma County)
Posts: 2,109
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

I'm not finding any information about CCW policy, Code of Ethics, Mission Statement, core values, Policy 219, SO's or any updates whatsoever since 2006.


I did find this from
SONOMA COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT
CHIEFS’ ASSOCIATION ,

but its is from 2007
http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Do...aponPolicy.pdf


Still essentially states verbatim what I have already voiced above.

Same games since the late 80's
http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/inca.pdf
__________________
Im just a doode, playin' a doode, disguised as another doode



Last edited by GillaFunk; 03-11-2014 at 5:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 03-12-2014, 4:39 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,262
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Dawg View Post
The policy you have posted is outdated. It was revised/updated in December 2012. Very dangerous, and irresponsible, to publish bad info on a subject as important as this...
Please post the updated policy to which you refer.
__________________
FPC, CGF, SAF, Madison, NRA, CRPA - CCW DENIED by SCSO
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 03-17-2014, 9:33 AM
G2283's Avatar
G2283 G2283 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So I just got off the phone with the SCSO and they said they will be sending me my app back and that I have to apply with Petaluma PD. What a crock!! They are only doing this because they know Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park will say NO the second you walk in the door. I'm done with this crapy state, get out while you can!!!
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 03-17-2014, 9:56 AM
dgc357's Avatar
dgc357 dgc357 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 659
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2283 View Post
So I just got off the phone with the SCSO and they said they will be sending me my app back and that I have to apply with Petaluma PD. What a crock!! They are only doing this because they know Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park will say NO the second you walk in the door. I'm done with this crapy state, get out while you can!!!
I wonder if they'll send mine back and tell me to apply in Santa Rosa.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 03-17-2014, 10:23 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,262
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Why is anyone even applying now. Peruta is currently stayed. The SCSO has stated on their website that they will continue with their pre-Peruta good cause requirements (will not issue) unless/until the ruling becomes law.
__________________
FPC, CGF, SAF, Madison, NRA, CRPA - CCW DENIED by SCSO
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 03-17-2014, 10:46 AM
dgc357's Avatar
dgc357 dgc357 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 659
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
Why is anyone even applying now. Peruta is currently stayed. The SCSO has stated on their website that they will continue with their pre-Peruta good cause requirements (will not issue) unless/until the ruling becomes law.
I applied before that was known and before the website was updated.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 03-17-2014, 10:54 AM
G2283's Avatar
G2283 G2283 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgc357 View Post
I applied before that was known and before the website was updated.
Yeah, so did I and the sheriffs office told me they would honor personal protection as just cause between 2/13 and 2/28. I turned turned my app in on 2/26 and they basically told me today not our problem go to Petaluma Pd and I told them I went there first and they said "that is a county issue" so I guess Sonoma County and this stupid state screwed me again!! Going to visit north Idaho in Oct. got to get the hell out of here.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 03-17-2014, 11:30 AM
dgc357's Avatar
dgc357 dgc357 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 659
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2283 View Post
Yeah, so did I and the sheriffs office told me they would honor personal protection as just cause between 2/13 and 2/28. I turned turned my app in on 2/26 and they basically told me today not our problem go to Petaluma Pd and I told them I went there first and they said "that is a county issue" so I guess Sonoma County and this stupid state screwed me again!! Going to visit north Idaho in Oct. got to get the hell out of here.
Did they actually review your application yet? I applied on the 27th ans haven't heard anything yet.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 03-17-2014, 11:38 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,040
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

If they are not processing and instead sending you to your city, they aren't allowed to do that. If they continue I smell a CGF lawsuit.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 03-17-2014, 12:01 PM
G2283's Avatar
G2283 G2283 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
If they are not processing and instead sending you to your city, they aren't allowed to do that. If they continue I smell a CGF lawsuit.
I just got off phone with pet pd and keep getting voicemail they are giving me the runaround.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 03-17-2014, 12:24 PM
mmayer707's Avatar
mmayer707 mmayer707 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pflugerville, TX
Posts: 713
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2283 View Post
I just got off phone with pet pd and keep getting voicemail they are giving me the runaround.
The Sheriff's dept. has it backwards. Petaluma PD can send you to the Sheriff's dept. and deny taking your application but the Sheriff's dept. can't do the opposite. They have to take it.
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 10:53 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.