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 > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-28-2010, 10:43 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default BillyJack pessimism on shall issue CA Carry Licenses

I'm not sure whether BillyJack is still banned but I do know that his blog doesn't seem to accept comments so I'm going to repost his post here and comment.

Quote:
What CCW will look like if a court defines Good Cause as 'Self' Defense'

2010-09-28 1846

I realize there are some out there that want unfettered CCW issuance on demand in California. Ain't going to happen, if you will excuse my speech pattern.

Here are the requirements that you can expect most departments to set. Most of these are already discretionary to some extent but you can expect them to become mandatory.

1. 16 hours Firearm Training for all initial applications. (Currently minimum is 4 to 16 hours maximum).

2. Mandatory Psychological testing for all initial appplications. (Currently discretionary)

3. Face to face interview with department personnel. (Currrently some departments are doing phone interviews)

4. Character letters from non family members.

5. Inspection of all CCW weapons by department Range Master.

6. Qualification at department range with all CCW carry weapons.

I know this will not sit well with those who want them on demand and who have not read the SCOTUS decision in McDonald. These are not draconian and they will stand a court challenge as they simply establish resonable criteria for carrying concealed and do not violate your 2nd Amendment Right to possess. Possessing is one thing, while carrying concealed is a public safety issue.

Billy Jack
Tea Party Patriot & Son of Liberty
Let's go through one by one.

1. There is no minimum. I'm sure SFSO will require 16 or even 24 hours via a community college per the Penal Code.

2. The rub on psych testing is that the licensing authority is required to match parity with its own employees. Per the PC, "If psychological testing on the initial application is required by the licensing authority, the license applicant shall be referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees."

3. The face to face requirement will last a couple of weeks until the tidal wave inundates the process. If the process remains slow, the CGF litigation team will have fun with the county's treasury.

4. I'm sorry, that's a violation of the Penal Code. "Reference letters" would be a prohibited type of "no requirement ... may be imposed by any licensing authority as a condition of the application for a license." See PC 12054(d).

5 & 6. See 4 for - at worst - an amusing pucker by County Counsel. Either way, CGF will have fun getting County Counsel to explain how they could require marching inspection for a parade permit under either intermediate or strict scrutiny...

Wasn't it Billy Jack who said that when law enforcement doesn't follow the law...?

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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

Last edited by hoffmang; 09-28-2010 at 10:43 PM.. Reason: better title
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-28-2010, 10:49 PM
Steyr_223's Avatar
Steyr_223 Steyr_223 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Raggedy Edge of the Verse, Fremont, California Republic
Posts: 9,506
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Wow, Gene is dropping the science on Billy J..Thanks!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-28-2010, 10:51 PM
NiteQwill's Avatar
NiteQwill NiteQwill is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Exiting the plane @ 13k feet
Posts: 6,239
iTrader: 70 / 100%
Default

Gene, you make me want to turn into a woman.
__________________

The fate of the wounded rest in the hands of the ones who apply the first dressing.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:00 PM
Patrick Aherne Patrick Aherne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SF Bay Area - Peninsula
Posts: 1,025
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You've got to remember, if California follows other states simple, shall-issue procedures, Billy Jack is out of a lot of work.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:03 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,906
iTrader: 133 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NiteQwill View Post
Gene, you make me want to turn into a woman.
Join the Navy
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:06 PM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,627
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Thanks Gene. Inch by inch we're fighting back. I like your view of the future.
__________________
Calguns Litigation Wiki
Quote:
Our conclusion [is] that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense. --PERUTA v. County of San Diego, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2014
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:07 PM
tango-52's Avatar
tango-52 tango-52 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Aherne View Post
You've got to remember, if California follows other states simple, shall-issue procedures, Billy Jack is out of a lot of work.
And that is the problem he has had all along with our efforts here and on CalCCW. He will have to go back to running a driver's safety school.
__________________
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” - Lazarus Long
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:09 PM
truthseeker's Avatar
truthseeker truthseeker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,396
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

WOW!

I can't wait to hear BJ's rebuttal!

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:10 PM
Anti-Hero's Avatar
Anti-Hero Anti-Hero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

zing!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:12 PM
Roadrunner Roadrunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,898
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
2. The rub on psych testing is that the licensing authority is required to match parity with its own employees. Per the PC, "If psychological testing on the initial application is required by the licensing authority, the license applicant shall be referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees."

-Gene
This one seems problematic. Who pays for the testing ? What objective criteria will they use to keep subjective opinion out of the application process ? I understand that they would want to keep nut cases from having a gun, but if a police chief or sheriff doesn't want to issue permits to citizens of their city or county, who's to say if they set the bar to where a CCW is out of reach to most people ?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:14 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadrunner View Post
This one seems problematic. Who pays for the testing ? What objective criteria will they use to keep subjective opinion out of the application process ? I understand that they would want to keep nut cases from having a gun, but if a police chief or sheriff doesn't want to issue permits to citizens of their city or county, who's to say if they set the bar to where a CCW is out of reach to most people ?
Who's to say? Alan Gura and Federal Judges. Psych testing is not constitutional under intermediate or strict scrutiny.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:18 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

The psych eval is borne by the applicant and no more than $150. I agree that it's constitutionally unsustainable and it's generally only used by the licensing authorities which will not issue, or issue only to their "possee"/campaign donors etc. and select others.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:18 PM
Roadrunner Roadrunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,898
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Who's to say? Alan Gura and Federal Judges. Psych testing is not constitutional under intermediate or strict scrutiny.

-Gene
By your post, I was getting the impression that you were saying that psych testing was legit, so long as they used the same criteria that was used for cops. Thanks for straightening that out.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:22 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadrunner View Post
By your post, I was getting the impression that you were saying that psych testing was legit, so long as they used the same criteria that was used for cops. Thanks for straightening that out.
My point was a touch more subtle. Step 1 for a department to require psych evals is for them to subject their own employees to psych evals. If they do not, then they can't even try to enforce the same on Carry License applicants. If they do, then we'll pre-lit them and take it further from there after we administer the IQ test.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:22 PM
tango-52's Avatar
tango-52 tango-52 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadrunner View Post
By your post, I was getting the impression that you were saying that psych testing was legit, so long as they used the same criteria that was used for cops. Thanks for straightening that out.
The psyche testing would have to be done on everyone who received a CCW, including all the cronies. Think they would put up with that? Not likely.
__________________
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” - Lazarus Long
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:31 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,891
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Sometimes this is so much fun.

First Sacto...next...the WORLD!
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:31 PM
CSDGuy CSDGuy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,748
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul0660 View Post
So is the smartest man in the world, aka CCWI.
If you're referring to that guy on CalCCW, (or for that matter, any other firearms instructor) I don't think so... at least not like you'd think. Some minimal training standard will likely be necessary. Those people will still be there to fill that training void. Same with renewal training. Even if there was NO standard, there would still be a market for people who want to know how to use their firearms.

I think that Billy Jack is far more concerned about the CCW litigation blizzard coming to a stop, and with it, a goodly portion of the income stream from that than anything else connected with going Shall Issue. There still will be some litigation that needs to be done from time to time, but that's going to be pretty infrequent.

That's what I see coming down the pike for CCW and Firearms instruction and Billy Jack's ways of getting CCW Licenses...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:33 PM
dieselpower's Avatar
dieselpower dieselpower is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ventura
Posts: 10,386
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

The psych is a dangerous game for the applicant. If they "fail" you wouldn't WIC laws come into play? You were just ruled a mental case..and you own other firearms. I am sure they could just say, "No good for a CCW", but then that PUBLIC record can be used against you in almost any case where attitude and demeanor are relevant.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:33 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,869
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hmmm. One must pass a psyche test to exercise a fundamental, enumerated, incorporated right. I don't think so. Maybe for a CCW, IF loaded open carry was available to anyone not disqualified from possessing.

Isn't the burden on the state to prove that you are crazy, and not the other way around?
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:34 PM
russ69's Avatar
russ69 russ69 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,593
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gene,

Billy Jack's idea of reasonable CCW rules is not even close to my idea of reasonable. The list is so full of fail, it's worse than what we have now (on paper anyway). We have to do way better than this.

Thanx, Russ
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-28-2010, 11:43 PM
Roadrunner Roadrunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,898
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
My point was a touch more subtle. Step 1 for a department to require psych evals is for them to subject their own employees to psych evals. If they do not, then they can't even try to enforce the same on Carry License applicants. If they do, then we'll pre-lit them and take it further from there after we administer the IQ test.

-Gene
I thought police already have to take psych tests. If this is true, then would this allow them to require psych tests for CCW applicants ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tango-52 View Post
The psyche testing would have to be done on everyone who received a CCW, including all the cronies. Think they would put up with that? Not likely.
I'm sure the elitists would get real indignant, of that, I have no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-29-2010, 12:03 AM
Zomgie's Avatar
Zomgie Zomgie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 1,303
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I know in Santa Barbara County police applicants are required to take a psych eval. From what I've heard (from a friend that failed) is it's first to see if you're a decent person but more importantly whether or not you'd be able to shoot if it came down to it (they didn't think he could kill someone in the line of duty).

So, Santa Barbara County, even in the brightest future, can require a psych eval of all CCW applicants and 24 hours of classes?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-29-2010, 12:05 AM
obeygiant's Avatar
obeygiant obeygiant is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 4,160
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
The psych eval is borne by the applicant and no more than $150. I agree that it's constitutionally unsustainable and it's generally only used by the licensing authorities which will not issue, or issue only to their "possee"/campaign donors etc. and select others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
My point was a touch more subtle. Step 1 for a department to require psych evals is for them to subject their own employees to psych evals. If they do not, then they can't even try to enforce the same on Carry License applicants. If they do, then we'll pre-lit them and take it further from there after we administer the IQ test.

-Gene
There is also the fact that many counties will flat out tell you that they do not require psych testing and have no interest in doing so.
__________________

Member, CRPA Board of Directors
"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." - Edmund Burke

Search Calguns using Google
CGN Search plugin for Firefox & IE CA Shotgun AW ID Flowchart CA Handgun AW ID Flowchart CA Senate CA Assembly Anti-2A Search Plugin
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-29-2010, 12:11 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There are very few counties that require psych test. Remember what the Penal Code says. "Employees", not "Sworn Police Officers". Unless the desk clerk is going through psych evals, neither can a CCW applicant.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-29-2010, 12:21 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,680
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
There are very few counties that require psych test. Remember what the Penal Code says. "Employees", not "Sworn Police Officers". Unless the desk clerk is going through psych evals, neither can a CCW applicant.
Yup, "words mean something".

That'll be a fine conundrum, too.... problematic employees that have already caused various troubles for their managment may get 'documented' and if further issues occur (harassment, assault, etc.) one can't say those were "isolated" or "surprising". They'll run from that like my friend Ed ran from his burning house in the San Bruno fire....
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-29-2010, 12:25 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Yup, "words mean something".

That'll be a fine conundrum, too.... problematic employees that have already caused various troubles for their managment may get 'documented' and if further issues occur (harassment, assault, etc.) one can't say those were "isolated" or "surprising". They'll run from that like my friend Ed ran from his burning house in the San Bruno fire....
Amen to that. This is legal software debugging at it's finest.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-29-2010, 3:44 AM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Following The_Quark's idea, #'s 2 and 3 will be really fun to go to and just remain silent.

At the beginning of the interview/eval, just hand them a small card on which is typed "Exercising 5th amendment".

And then simply say nothing for the duration of the interview.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-29-2010, 4:36 AM
NSR500 NSR500 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Houston & SF Bay Area
Posts: 19,544
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I like where this is going.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-29-2010, 6:06 AM
Sobriquet's Avatar
Sobriquet Sobriquet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Southern Cal
Posts: 820
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have to agree with Gene and Gray. It's not a question of if this scheme comes down, just when. The only question in my mind is when it'll be LA County's turn. We're attacking on multiple fronts and it's hard to tell where we'll break through the lines.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-29-2010, 6:35 AM
nazgulnarsil nazgulnarsil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

at this point I don't even care if the requirements are dumb as long as they STOP BEING ARBITRARY DISCRETION.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-29-2010, 6:58 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
CalGuns Truth Squad
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,545
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadrunner View Post
I thought police already have to take psych tests. If this is true, then would this allow them to require psych tests for CCW applicants ?
As mentioned, some issuing agencies already require psych tests for CCW; it's permitted by the PC. The applicant pays for it, which is also mentioned in the PC.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-29-2010, 7:22 AM
coyotek coyotek is offline
Junior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When I renewed this year, El Dorado county required 3 "character reference" letters from non family members. It wasn't a big deal but I had to wonder what was the point.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-29-2010, 7:33 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,898
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I can certainly some particuarly foolish counties trying some or all of that stuff mentioned by TBJ, but I dont think they would get away with it for very long.

Regarding psych testing, I think where alot of LEAs would be screwed on that deal is that fact that nearly none of them require it now. so they would have a tough time explaining why, although allowed to by law, that have not required psych testing for the last 50yrs but NOW suddenly do following a court order to accept self-defense as GC. It would be plainly obvious what they were trying to do.

I think that would actually apply to just about any changes in requirements. If they suddenly jack-up the criteria after the court decision, when for the previous 50yrs none of those were required, it would seem plainly obvious to anyone that they are simply trying to bury applicants in red tape to try and desuade them from applying. I pray that most Sheriff's are not that stupid.

My question would be, if they're going to then require that, would theyh hafta require anyone previously issued a CCW w/o a psych test to submit to one at the time of their next renewal?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-29-2010, 7:42 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,898
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
My point was a touch more subtle. Step 1 for a department to require psych evals is for them to subject their own employees to psych evals. If they do not, then they can't even try to enforce the same on Carry License applicants. If they do, then we'll pre-lit them and take it further from there after we administer the IQ test.

-Gene

CA-POST hiring criteria states that a psych eval is a mandaorty requirement for pre-employment screening for anyone to become a sworn LEO. That is not a discretionary issue for any LEA in CA.

Check out GC 9055 (a)(1)

Quote:
Every peace officer candidate shall be evaluated to determine if the candidate is free from any
emotional or mental condition that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace
officer [Government Code § 1031(f)], and to otherwise ensure that the candidate is capable of
withstanding the psychological demands of the position.
(1) The psychological evaluation shall be conducted by either of the following:
(A) A physician and surgeon who holds a valid California license to practice medicine,
has successfully completed a postgraduate medical residency education program
in psychiatry accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical
Education, and has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in
the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the
equivalent of three full-time years accrued after completion of the psychiatric
residency program.
(B) A psychologist licensed by the California Board of Psychology who has at least the
equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of
emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years
accrued post-doctorate.


http://lib.post.ca.gov/publications/...quirements.pdf
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-29-2010, 7:51 AM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

But, is the psych eval for one who wishes to exercise a fundamental right personal to him, i.e. self defense the same as one who is expected to go out there and enforce the law and make it his business to get into dicey situations. I'd submit that the level of psychiatric stability and the scrutiny applied thereto should be much higher for an LEO. After all, they are not just defending themselves and "us", but with police powers comes an ability/requirement for them to trample on other's lives/rights in the course of their duties.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-29-2010, 7:51 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,898
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
There are very few counties that require psych test. Remember what the Penal Code says. "Employees", not "Sworn Police Officers". Unless the desk clerk is going through psych evals, neither can a CCW applicant.

Couldnt they argue though that they require a pysch eval of all employees that will be carrying guns, therefore it is not unreasonable to require that of a CCW applicant? Not saying I agree, just that they would likely argue that.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-29-2010, 7:56 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,898
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotek View Post
When I renewed this year, El Dorado county required 3 "character reference" letters from non family members. It wasn't a big deal but I had to wonder what was the point.
I have a question regarding reference letters that I've asked before and never gotten answered:

Currently San Diego County requires 3 reference letters from non-family members, and they also require that those 3 references be residents of San Diego County.

http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html
Quote:
▪ Three character reference letters are required to assist in substantiating good moral character.
▪ These letters must be written by local residents and contain a local address and phone number. Letters will not be accepted from any relatives. The writer must also acknowledge he or she understands the letter is for an application for a concealed weapons license.

IS THIS LEGAL? If not, if one applies can they tell SDSO that is an illegal requirement which you will not comply with?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-29-2010, 8:02 AM
the_quark's Avatar
the_quark the_quark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
There are very few counties that require psych test. Remember what the Penal Code says. "Employees", not "Sworn Police Officers". Unless the desk clerk is going through psych evals, neither can a CCW applicant.
Actually, I disagree with this assessment (I'm sure Gene will explain to me how I'm wrong when we get to work).

California PC 12052(c) says:

Quote:
If psychological testing on the initial application is required by the licensing authority, the license applicant shall be referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees.
It has no requirement of the quantity or percentage of employees that must be tested. I'd think, if a LEA has a psychologist they have evaluate employees on an ad hoc basis (say, after shooting a suspect), that is the "psychologist used by the licensing authority for the psychological testing of its own employees." Certainly in any large county, they'll already have such a relationship (and I'd think in every county, they would).

That said, it's still a non-starter, because you go in there and say "I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment rights," and I think they're pretty stuck. I'd also note for the record this isn't my idea, I read it from Gray.
__________________
Brett Thomas - @the_quark on Twitter -
Founding CGF Director and Treasurer; NRA Life Member; Ex-CRPA Director and Life Member; SAF Life Member; Peña Plaintiff
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-29-2010, 8:03 AM
43Merlin 43Merlin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Contra Costa
Posts: 12
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I've worked with psychiatrists and psychologists for many years. Most of them have no knowledge of guns, and many would consider merely the desire to own a gun as a sign of psychologic imbalance.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-29-2010, 8:04 AM
J.D.Allen J.D.Allen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I think that BJ's point was that if these LEA's suddenly see shall issue forced on them despite their best efforts to stop it, they would start increasing the jump through hoops and requirements so as to make it more difficult. Maybe even so difficult it discourages people from applying. If for no other reason than retaliation. So some counties that don't currently require things like psych evals, because they can just arbitrarily deny anyway, may start requiring them because now they feel they need to. And you know the nut jobs in sacto (read: legislature) will start slithering around trying to find ways to restrict it as much as possible too.

I don't like it, and maybe these things won't stand up in court long, but I can see the logic behind his comments. Remember, if the courts FORCE shall issue, it is not going to change the culture of this state overnight. They are not going willingly, they are being dragged while kicking and screaming the whole way. And they may start taking more and more desperate measures as they feel control slipping away.
__________________
"Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows him?"-Obi Wan Kenobi

the question here is not whether the carrying of arms is a good idea—the question is
whether carrying arms is constitutionally protected. Objective standards and due process—not
Defendants’ philosophy or personal beliefs about the value of this activity—must carry the day-Alan Gura
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 4:36 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.