San Francisco

[SFgiants105]

Originally Posted by rips31

business as-usual. mirkarimi is more anti- than hennessey, hypocrisy be damned.

lol

[Radambe]

Does anyone have any new info on SF? With the interim sheriff in place (one with an actual background in law enforcement, lol), I'm wondering if anyone has applied recently or any new experiences to report.

[BlairB]

New to the forum and also very interested as to if there are any updates!

[CapS]

Welcome to CalGuns!

In (partial) answer to your question, please read the first ten (or so) posts in this thread.

Best regards,

Cap

[wizdumb]

Is there anything SF residents can help with, since the passage of SB 610?

[fizux]

Originally Posted by wizdumb

Is there anything SF residents can help with, since the passage of SB 610?

Yeah, get out the vote on 11/03/2015. Tell all your friends in free states to move here and give the good weather a chance in the summer of 2015.

The current sheriff received 70,204 votes in 2011, and that was before his little foray into the other side of the criminal justice system. Given the national leadership that SF has provided to gun grabbers, it sure would be a coup to get a shall-issue candidate in office.

[Dreaded Claymore]

Links to SF's policy in this thread aren't working, they lead to a 404 error on the CGF website. Can they be fixed?

[noway]

Any news on how Peruta decision will affect SF citizens? I just looked at their application and it still has the requirement for documentation for Good Cause rather than just "Self-Defense".

[sfbadger]

SF will have to be dragged into court kicking and screaming before we get compliance. This city will be the LAST to get with the program, but they will come around. May as well just sit back and enjoy the show around the rest of the state for now.

[fizux]

SFPD info & policy page:
http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=3933

Anyone have any post-Peruta feedback?

[Fifty226]

Originally Posted by sfbadger

SF will have to be dragged into court kicking and screaming before we get compliance. This city will be the LAST to get with the program, but they will come around. May as well just sit back and enjoy the show around the rest of the state for now.

that really sucks because they will be using taxpaper money in courts to deny our 2A rights......instead of just giving it to us like other cities in CA

[sfbadger]

That's the way it's always worked in SF since I can remember. The SF Board of Supervisors enacts an asinine regulation and then Dennis Herrera defends it all the way to the CA Supreme Court, spending SF taxpayer resources every step of the way.

After each loss I usually send him a letter berating him for his decisions and tell him I'm making another donation in his name to the NRA. It's a lovely game we play.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by fizux

SFPD info & policy page:
http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=3933

Well, I've never seen that before on SFPD's website. How'd you find it???

It's not linked on their homepage:
http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=1

It's not linked on their list of Permits page:
http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=869

It's not linked on their Permit Applications Forms page:
http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=873

So, did SFPD put it up on their website w/o being linked anywhere so that only those who do a search for "concealed carry" or "CCW" ("LTC" does not work) will find it?

Does the SFSO also hide info. re. getting a CCW from them? Or do they think they can somehow break the law and get away with it by declaring G and having "civilians" apply thru SFPD?

http://www.sfsheriff.com/

[fizux]

I can't find the SFSO policy on their website, but SFPD's has been there quite a while. From the home page, click "information" in the menu, which brings you here:
http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=1577
The CCW page is linked from there. Yes, I said "CCW" not "LTC." SFPD still calls it "CCW."

[noway]

I searched "Good Cause CCW" on their search engine, and came to SFPD CCW Licensing Policy on PDF. It's still dated as being revised 01/12/2012. They still require the following for Good Cause.

http://www.sf-police.org/Modules/Sho...cumentID=25869

1. There is a reported, documented, presently existing, and significant risk of danger to life or of
great bodily injury to the applicant and/or his or her spouse, domestic partner or dependents;
2. The danger of harm is specific to the applicant or his or her immediate family and is not
generally shared by other similarly situated members of the public;
3. Existing law enforcement resources cannot adequately address the danger of harm;
4. The danger of harm cannot reasonably be avoided by alternative measures; and
5. Licensing the applicant to carry a concealed weapon is significantly likely to reduce the
danger of harm.

Still no change post-Peruta ruling. And just when my previous county became shall-issue. Just speculation, but I believe SF will be the LAST city and county to go "shall issue" in CA.

[Rigidarm]

You SF folks give 'ol soon to be Ex Senator Leland Yee a call and see if he can help out with your CCW. I read that he can work wonders if you pay him a bucket of cash. Heard that he really loves guns after all if the price is right.

[fizux]

Originally Posted by Rigidarm

You SF folks give 'ol soon to be Ex Senator Leland Yee a call and see if he can help out with your CCW. I read that he can work wonders if you pay him a bucket of cash. Heard that he really loves guns after all if the price is right.

Can I get an AR-pistol on my permit, or must it be "shoulder fired"?

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Originally Posted by fizux

Can I get an AR-pistol on my permit, or must it be "shoulder fired"?

Well the actual wording of the LTC is:

License To Carry Concealed Pistol, Revolver or Other Firearm Within the State of California

And I personally know a guy that had a pistol gripped Rem 870 on his LTC issued by the Santa Clara SO's back in the 90's, so it is possible.

[fizux]

Anybody heard anything back yet from either SFPD or SFSO?
(other than hurry up and wait)

[aberrant]

I dropped my application off this morning. The officer who took it was very nice. Strange thing: I had to fill out section 7 in full (usually done by the interviewer) - her rationale was that it was the only part of the form that had a place to put my phone number, and that's how they'd be contacting me.

For Good Cause, I just put "self defense". The officer said that most people attach additional pages, and I mentioned that it shouldn't be required given today's Peruta decision. She laughed.

She said that the app will go downstairs to the Background Investigations department and I should receive a call within 2 weeks. Fingers crossed.

[mofugly13]

Did you do this through SFPD? SFSD doesn't seem to have any information whatsoever WRT applying for a permit. SFPD requires 'up to' 16 hours of firearms training. When is this supposed to occur? What about the 'psychological evaluation'? Are you planning on just jumping through these hoops as they are presented to you? Sorry for the questions, but I'd love to hear detailed updates as you progress through the process.

I wish CGF would give us an update WRT how the process started and , apparently, ended with wizdumb and sfbadger.

[fizux]

I will copy/paste/edit/redact my contact notes and send them along to CGF for mass consumption. Don't expect a lot of progress over the holidays with one person juggling updates in 58 counties, while simultaneously quarterbacking a bunch of 3-5 year old litigation that suddenly just got exciting.
Edit: BTW, nothing has changed about the process in years; there really isn't anything to update, except they sure aren't processing applications in a timely manner.

With a likely split in the left-wing vote next year, can anyone get a pro-2A candidate for Sheriff to step up to the plate?

[Dickie Doyle]

Aberrant, any news on that application you dropped off?

[jeremyro]

anyone else try this? I am thinking of giving it a shot just to see what happens. Is there a potential downside to applying and being denied?

[GlockN'Roll]

Lost and Stolen LEO weapons in SF used in crimes:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/20...cmp=latestnews

And yet citizens can't be trusted with their weapons...

[mofugly13]

No responses/feedback from anyone who said they were applying.....

What did they do to you in there??!!

[mofugly13]

No updates in here, whatsoever? I’ll echo the request for those who applied to come back an tell us their experience.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mofugly13]

Crickets....
New Sheriff in town, anyone know anything?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Big Jake]

Originally Posted by mofugly13

Crickets....
New Sheriff in town, anyone know anything?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

You have ZERO chance of getting a CCW in SF. Move to a CCW friendly county if you want one!

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by mofugly13

Crickets....
New Sheriff in town, anyone know anything?

I haven't kept up because SF is, well, SF. But last I heard SF sheriff referred all, or almost all, standard/residential 2-year CCW applicants to the SFPD and it's CoP.
https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/g...nd-application

You can look for CCW info on the SF SO's website at: https://www.sfsheriff.com/policies.html

But, even if you get a CCW and have video justifying you using it, would you dare???
https://www.crimeandconsequences.blo...san-francisco/

[starlight]

- lolz
- each post in this thread is like 2 years apart...lol



.

[Big Jake]

Originally Posted by starlight

- lolz
- each post in this thread is like 2 years apart...lol



.

Because it is a truly worthless thread. The very idea that ANYONE actually thinks they have a chance of being issued a CCW in that rat infested place called San Francisco is a complete joke!

[Paladin]

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.

Remember: a denial for insufficient GC does NOT hurt your future chances. The IA just compares your future GC to their future GC standard.

If SD and LA can change (SD definitely has and LA is appearing to have), SF can.

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).) (SF, LA and Alameda have this as their only acceptable GC, but I've heard Alameda & LA approves or denies not in conformity to their published policy.

[Paladin]

SF is the sole consolidated city county (both have same borders) in the state. IIRC, the SF sheriff has delegated all CCW issuance to the SFPD chief of police. (You can find out for sure by filing a Public Records Act request with either SFPD or SFSO asking for copies of all current Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) between the two agencies.)

Bottom line: Since the SF Chief doesn’t run for office they don’t need campaign donors so they can’t sell CCWs for large donations. SFPD might actually issue for GC, however they define it.

ETA: Here’s the link to the SFPD CCW webpage: https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/g...nd-application

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

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

...

[sfbadger]

I believe this case has been brought forward by NY State residents, correct?
What's so different about this case that the complaint couldn't have been made by residents in CA or any other state?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by sfbadger

I believe this case has been brought forward by NY State residents, correct?
What's so different about this case that the complaint couldn't have been made by residents in CA or any other state?

Yes, NYSRPA v Corlett.

We have brought cases, both OC and CC, in federal court. Remember Peruta? They keep dying at the Ninth Circuit, either on appeal or at en banc appeal and then SCOTUS wouldn’t take them. What’s changed? RBG is gone and Trump put 3 justices on the Court.

[baggss]

Looks like someone is trying to start a pressure campaign with the SF Sheriff. Worth a watch.

https://youtu.be/jE4kAQeRhf8

[baggss]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Yes, NYSRPA v Corlett.

We have brought cases, both OC and CC, in federal court. Remember Peruta? They keep dying at the Ninth Circuit, either on appeal or at en banc appeal and then SCOTUS wouldn’t take them. What’s changed? RBG is gone and Trump put 3 justices on the Court.

My response to to a lot of the nay-sayers on line has been this:

Do you think it was the 3 Liberals and Roberts who agreed to take this case or do think it was the 4/5 Conservatives who know they have the votes to clarify the issue (and potentially drag Roberts along for technical reasons)?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by baggss

Looks like someone is trying to start a pressure campaign with the SF Sheriff. Worth a watch.

https://youtu.be/jE4kAQeRhf8

Here’s the video embedded:



Watching that reminds me of what I went through 10 to 15 years ago when I was helping “Team Billy Jack”: SFCSO lying, saying they don’t issue. But back then neither they nor SFPD had much of a web presence. SFCSO still doesn’t have info about CCWs on theirs (despite issuing, albeit rarely), whereas SFPD now has all the info you need easily accessible under “Services”: https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/g...nd-application

Bottom line: SFCSO does issue CCWs, but extremely rarely. That function is primarily handled by SFPD which also rarely issues them. SFPD Good Cause criteria can be found in their CCW policy at: https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/s...icy%5B1%5D.pdf

Applying with either is probably pretty much pointless unless you have Dark Red (personal threats) or maybe Light Red (professional or business ownership risks) GC. Best to encourage all law-abiding Asians (and others) in SF to: (1) exercise situational awareness (Cooper’s Color Code); (2) obey the 4 Stupids Rule (avoid going to Stupid places, avoid being around Stupid people, avoid doing Stupid things, and avoid being out at Stupid times); and (3) everyday carry (EDC) pepper spray.

Unfortunately, most recent attacks on elderly Asians would still happen: they were in their own communities in public areas in daylight hours doing lawful things (not Stupid places, people, things or times). The predators came after them. Here only vigilant situational awareness (hard to expect from elders) could prevent this. But even if aware of impending threat elderly can’t flee. No, only sure and swift punishment by police, prosecutors and the state help. Instead Democrats are early releasing, unleashing evildoers upon us and banning the Death Penalty (as well as being against legal gun ownership). Democrats care more about coddling criminals than protecting the innocent and victims. Like it or not, liberal politics caused this.

Pepper spray and CCWs could empower witnesses intervene and stop attacks from being as severe as they have been (and hurting or killing those kicking or stomping their heads).

Hopefully SCOTUS in about a year will at long last allow all law-abiding Americans to defend ourselves and others in public using traditional American martial art weapons: guns!