|
Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum Information on how to get a LTC in yourCounty |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
That is also gone as well. We will be updating the San Mateo information packet at a later time, once everything is narrowed down.
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Oh about three to four years ago under the previous sheriff. They may have change their thinking now, I dont know. I decided it was easier for me to switch residence than attempt suing them. I am more interested in CCW more than anything else. I now feel safe since then.
__________________
Pinoy Bwana |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
So if you have good cause above simple self defense then you should apply again...
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks, I will when I decide to re-switch my primary residence. I am just waiting for the results of the two I know who applied. besides I am currently a happy camper.
__________________
Pinoy Bwana |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
What would be good cause besides "simple self defense" in San Mateo County? I don't have a stalker, I haven't been assaulted, etc... does a person need proof that they have been victimized before they can apply for a CCW in San mateo County?
__________________
NSDQ |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
No.
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Why is it that people assume that when I say "no" to a question like "I don't have a stalker, I haven't been assaulted, etc... does a person need proof that they have been victimized before they can apply for a CCW in San mateo County?", the assumption is "So simple self defense will work"? The answer to this is no.
The correct answer is what Gene stated: Quote:
"Will Issue for Reasonable Good Cause; known to issue to average persons". |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
The way i have read into this is that the Sheriff wants you to perhaps explain in a little more detail why you want a CCW. I carry large amounts of cash, i am in situations because of work that puts me at risk, i work nights alone in rural areas, ect. They don't want to see the only words of " to protect myself or just self defense. Those words are really obvious to the sheriff.
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The basic answer is that you must articulate your good cause, but it does not require specific threats, stalking, or being a crime victim first. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Open for correction by the top brass here if i am mistaken! |
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-20-2010 at 4:31 PM.. |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#61
|
||||
|
||||
I was wondering if the CalCCW map had been updated, and saw that it had. Sacto is now dark green and San Joaquin is light green. Merced is still yellow, which may be out of date. San Benito being dark green is a surprise. But the real surprise IMO is in the Bay Area . . . .
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 12-28-2010 at 10:32 PM.. |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
So how many people do we know of with reasonable good cause that have permits in hand? Any update on the good cause statements? I'm eager to get my application rolling since I have pretty decent good cause available
__________________
I hate people that are full of hate. It's not illegal to tip for PPT! |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Right now I don't think San Mateo all that promising
They told me I needed to have a clear and present danger to apply Guess I will be moving to a friendly county Last edited by taperxz; 01-16-2011 at 7:39 AM.. |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-Gray |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
I guess i missed this post. No worries, it happens Anyway I can't be upset at someone who works so hard for my rights!
|
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Acc to post #69 over at: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...=210945&page=2 Gene says SM really is light/lime green.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
They're lying. We have two initial applicants who got licenses that didn't need an immediate threat. Please hold off on applying for now. Holding pattern for Nordyke.
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
OK, I don't understand the "lie" part. Isn't their policy, their policy? When does Nordyke get done and I thought that was a gun show thing. Excuse my ignorance. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Nordyke is expected any time now. As an appeals case the lower courts will be bound by its result. If we get strict scrutiny for law abiding people through Nordyke then the carry cases are extremely strong. It also sets up sheriff's for future liability if they deny applicants in the interim if we get strict scrutiny, or the like.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
OK, I was a little confused with the message. The map shows lime, a previous poster reported the same thing that I experienced, calguns has two people that got one but the SO is now not telling the truth.
I noticed that some counties have good cause statements available. What good cause did the cal gunners use? Thanks for your help. SS357 |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Nordyke I Oral Argument. Occured 1/15/2009 Nordyke I decision Occured 04/20/2009. Used intermediate scrutiny and declared 2A's application to state and local government, but said Alameda's ban on gun shows did not violate 2A, used weak intermediate scrutiny test. Nordyke went en banc in July 2009. Nordyke en banc ruling Then another oral argument happened en banc on September 24th, 2009: Nordyke II (en banc) oral argument Post-McDonald, the Nordyke en banc panel released Nordyke en banc order remanding back to 3 judge panel Then, Nordyke 3 judge panel reheard oral arguments again (Nordyke III): Nordyke III oral arguments Legend for scrutiny: Rational Basis=bad for us Intermediate Scrutiny=better for us, but not best. Strict Scrutiny=Best for us. See also a sister case in the 4th Circuit (East Coast) United States v. Chester Important: Although Chester asserts his right to possess a firearm in his home for the purpose of self-defense, we believe his claim is not within the core right identified in Heller—the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense—by virtue of Chester’s criminal history as a domestic violence misdemeanant. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2821. Accordingly, we conclude that intermediate scrutiny is more appropriate than strict scrutiny for Chester and similarly situated persons. This was cited to the Nordyke 3 judge panel in what's called a supplemental authorities letter, aka a 28(j) letter. A sister circuit is considered pursuasive authority. If we get language that says "strict scrutiny" for law abiding citizens in Nordyke, it'll overturn the Peruta district court decision (it used weak intermediate and declared no right existed outside of home). Nordyke isn't purely a "gun show" case. It was the Nordyke I decision which caused the safe handgun roster challenge (Peña v. Cid) and the carry challenge (Sykes and now Richards) to go forward, despite the fact that gun show lost. Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-01-2011 at 9:35 AM.. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Great questions and even better answers!! It never dawned on me that I called after the Peruta decision. For what ever reason I never paired the CGF initiative with the court rulings. I just thought that Munks was doing this because of the letter of the law you were making him aware of and the use of McDonald and Heller. Learn something new every day.
|
#77
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Since I'm not a Right Person (well, maybe half-Right ), I've been chewing at the bit waiting for new releases of GC statements and increases in the number of "**TIME TO APPLY**" counties. After being frustrated for awhile I assumed everyone was waiting for Godot, er, Nordyke. If that goes our way (strict scrutiny), it should give legal -- and thereby political -- cover to sheriffs who are our allies to come out of the closest, so to speak, and strike terror in the hearts of those who hate our 2nd A RKBA. (Feel free to use your best Arnold accent to insert here Conan's answer to "What's best in life?" Oops! With the flare up re. Rush Limbaugh and CA Sen. Leland Yee, maybe we can't do that anymore? Or maybe it is only European accents that can still be made fun of? ) Anyway, IIRC, odds are that Nordyke will be released before April. Time for a sandwich and a two-month nap. . . .
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 02-01-2011 at 4:02 PM.. |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Very good explanation from Gray.
And so would I be correct in saying that strict scrutiny must be given when a core fundamental right is severely burdened? When I was listening to Nordyke III, I listen (at 25:51 into the recording) to one of the Judges asking the opposing counsel why Strict Scrutiny shouldn't be given in this case, and she argued: Quote:
And then she uses that term "presumptively" at the end of her answer when talking about the regulations that she believes survives the 2A. I don't see how the court can do anything other than apply SS to the ordinance. Erik. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|