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
  #41  
Old 05-30-2011, 12:22 PM
greasemonkey greasemonkey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: www.CalgunsFoundation.org
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus View Post
I'm wondering, would it be lawful for the sheriff to declare "constitutional carry" in the county was allowed until they can catch up with their backlog? He'd/she'd have to get the cooperation of the city chiefs of police I'm sure.
I don't believe so because there are State laws to deal with, namely, GFSZ, that only a CCW permit would exempt you from being in violation of. If our Sheriff did want to get as close to Constitutional-carry as State Law would allow, the entire circus put on with the extreme delays on interviews and other such nonsense would be thrown aside, Good Cause would be Self Defense, Good Moral Character would be 'not prohibited', rubber stamp an application and be done with it.
Even with a 'friendly' Sheriff in Fresno, the permit process is still burdensome and unnecessary, there's still a web of politics and favoritism that's in addition to State Law.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-30-2011, 2:41 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
No Ca county is "shall issue" and they can't be under present law.
In re-reading my previous replies, I saw that I failed to address this squarely. Your assertion that licensing authorities cannot be "shall issue" under current law is absolutely untrue.

Any sheriff can *choose* - right now - to be "shall issue" in every way save for statutory prohibitions. The limits of their discretion are not such that would preclude them from adopting a policy of 1) accepting, 2) processing, and 3) approving - administratively, and with virtually zero internal work - all applications that were not rejected by DOJ.

NOTHING stops a licensing authority from being "shall issue" except their own choice *not* to be.

Quote:
But our sherif is doing the best she can to make Fresno as close as possible to that ideal.
No, she's not, but she is better than most. I don't wish to take away from what she's doing right, but I have to call BS on the "she's doing the best she can" line of apology.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 05-30-2011 at 2:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-30-2011, 2:43 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus View Post
I'm wondering, would it be lawful for the sheriff to declare "constitutional carry" in the county was allowed until they can catch up with their backlog? He'd/she'd have to get the cooperation of the city chiefs of police I'm sure.
No, neither the sheriff nor any other licensing authority may simply waive the penal code.

As greasemonkey correctly stated, if they don't want backlog, they should rubberstamp all applications that are not rejected by DOJ. It takes 5 minutes to process a CCW application unless they choose to add work.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 05-30-2011 at 2:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-30-2011, 3:04 PM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,786
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus View Post
I'm wondering, would it be lawful for the sheriff to declare "constitutional carry" in the county was allowed until they can catch up with their backlog? He'd/she'd have to get the cooperation of the city chiefs of police I'm sure.
Regardless of the legality of such an action even if it were to fly...wouldn't that limit you to authorized concealed carry in ONLY the county where such a situation prevailed? Seems to me it might.
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-30-2011, 3:10 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S View Post
Regardless of the legality of such an action even if it were to fly...wouldn't that limit you to authorized concealed carry in ONLY the county where such a situation prevailed? Seems to me it might.
There is no legal possibility, so the rest is moot.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-30-2011, 3:17 PM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,786
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
No, neither the sheriff nor any other licensing authority may simply waive the penal code.

As greasemonkey correctly stated, if they don't want backlog, they should rubberstamp all applications that are not rejected by DOJ. It takes 5 minutes to process a CCW application unless they choose to add work.
Here in Fresno County the current and the past sheriff required(s) a new handgun safety certificate every two years upon renewal of the CCW. Since an HSC is good for 5 years (I believe) I've always thought that was bogus...but what are you gonna do? I've had a CCW ever since Hal McKinney was sheriff (1975 - 1987) and I'm not about to let it lapse.
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-30-2011, 4:09 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S View Post
Here in Fresno County the current and the past sheriff required(s) a new handgun safety certificate every two years upon renewal of the CCW. Since an HSC is good for 5 years (I believe) I've always thought that was bogus...but what are you gonna do? I've had a CCW ever since Hal McKinney was sheriff (1975 - 1987) and I'm not about to let it lapse.
The HSC requirement is an unlawful policy. We'll simply make that go away.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-30-2011, 10:08 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Paul:

I think you are confusing the four hours of training required by PC 12050 (a)(1)(E)(ii) for renewal with a HSC. Fresno has no requirement for a HSC for renewal, that's a completely different animal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S View Post
Here in Fresno County the current and the past sheriff required(s) a new handgun safety certificate every two years upon renewal of the CCW. Since an HSC is good for 5 years (I believe) I've always thought that was bogus...but what are you gonna do? I've had a CCW ever since Hal McKinney was sheriff (1975 - 1987) and I'm not about to let it lapse.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-30-2011, 11:36 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

In an earlier post you sead of me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
3. You don't understand mandates and the duties of the office of the Sheriff.

-Brandon
PC 12050 mandates that the sheriff evaluate the character and cause of each individual applicant. That is current CA law, like it or not. Any sheriff who does not do this is neglecting their duty. A sheriff can no more declare that all applicants will be approved than they can declare no applicants will be approved. The sheriff must give all applications full, fair, and equal consideration. By the way, that last part is called Due Process. The sheriff must by law provide that process; consequently no CA County can be Shall Issue.

You may not like it, I certainly don't, but that's the way it is until we can change the law or get a SCOTUS decision finding it unconstitutional.




Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
In re-reading my previous replies, I saw that I failed to address this squarely. Your assertion that licensing authorities cannot be "shall issue" under current law is absolutely untrue.

Any sheriff can *choose* - right now - to be "shall issue" in every way save for statutory prohibitions. The limits of their discretion are not such that would preclude them from adopting a policy of 1) accepting, 2) processing, and 3) approving - administratively, and with virtually zero internal work - all applications that were not rejected by DOJ.

NOTHING stops a licensing authority from being "shall issue" except their own choice *not* to be.



No, she's not, but she is better than most. I don't wish to take away from what she's doing right, but I have to call BS on the "she's doing the best she can" line of apology.

-Brandon
Mims believes in the RKBA. Under current law we do not and cannot have real constitutional carry. However, Mims is trying to advance as far as possible along a path toward that end, within the constraints of present law. This is new ground being ploughed here. Rocks, stumps, and quagmires have to be expected. We need to point them out and help to clear the way, unless we are just looking for a fight that can be perused all the way to SCOTUS. If that is the goal I can think of much more deserving targets.
Actually I think at least some of the problem with the FCSD procedure is that it is set up to make sure the applicant is not stuck with huge non-refundable fees and then denied.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained be stupidity. This applies in spades to government agencies.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)

Last edited by Meplat; 05-31-2011 at 2:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-31-2011, 9:56 AM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,786
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Paul:

I think you are confusing the four hours of training required by PC 12050 (a)(1)(E)(ii) for renewal with a HSC. Fresno has no requirement for a HSC for renewal, that's a completely different animal.
Thanks for the correction and straightening me out on that one. I went back into my files and looked at the CCW folder and you are indeed correct.
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-31-2011, 12:21 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Buy the way. In the gun shops I go to they will take a CCW in lu of a HSC, so you don't have to pay to take that silly "don't look down the barrel and pull the trigger" test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S View Post
Thanks for the correction and straightening me out on that one. I went back into my files and looked at the CCW folder and you are indeed correct.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-31-2011, 1:26 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
The sheriff evaluate the character and cause of each individual applicant. That is current CA law, like it or not. Any sheriff who does not do this is neglecting their duty. A sheriff can no more declare that all applicants will be approved than they can declare no applicants will be approved.
The law does not say that licensing authorities must have a standard of discretion that exceeds "self defense" and "non-prohibited", only that they *can*.

Their duties under 12050, et. seq., are:
* Accept and process all applications from those residing within the same jurisdiction. For sheriffs, accept applications for business purpose (90 day) licenses. For chiefs of police, either accept applications from city residents or enter into a "g" agreement with the sheriff to accept and process all applications from city residents.

* Take fingerprints and forward to DOJ.

* Collect DOJ background check fees from applicant.

* Evaluate the application for proof of "good cause" and "good moral character".

* Receive the DOJ PC 12052 background check prior to issuing any license.

* Ensure that all approved applicants complete required training containing, at minimum, those areas outlined in PC.

* Administer license renewals and amendments.

* Report all activity to DOJ and maintain data locally.
Your conclusion in re the duties of licensing authorities is incorrect. Their discretion and authority to issue licenses has a floor duty of "accept all appropriate applications" and a ceiling of "cannot issue to prohibited persons".

Quote:
The sheriff must give all applications full, fair, and equal consideration. By the way, that last part is called Due Process.
That last part's equal protection.

Quote:
The sheriff must by law provide that process; consequently no CA County can be Shall Issue.
The process is compelled by statute; arbitrary and capricious application of any policy may very well violate EP14A, but there's no constitutional or statutory bar to being "shall issue [to non-prohibited persons]".

Consider: a sheriff tells non-prohibited person Applicant A, aged 21, that their application is approved based on a showing of "self-defense" as good cause and their DOJ background check showing A as eligible to possess firearms as proof of their "good moral character". Such would be a lawful exercise of discretion.

Applicant B is a similarly-situated adult with identical facts. How *must* the sheriff exercise their discretion in the case of B?

Quote:
You may not like it, I certainly don't, but that's the way it is until we can change the law or get a SCOTUS decision finding it unconstitutional.
That's not the way it is.

You're conflating a permit-based "shall-issue" system under 2A/14A with a system that simply reflects the instructions of statute/14A (including the statutory discretion to issue to any non-prohibited person for any "good cause" acceptable to the licensing authority).

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 05-31-2011 at 1:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-31-2011, 1:28 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Buy the way. In the gun shops I go to they will take a CCW in lu of a HSC, so you don't have to pay to take that silly "don't look down the barrel and pull the trigger" test.
FYI, all gun shops can exempt CCW holders:

Quote:
6. What are the Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) requirement exemption codes?

X01 = Special Weapons Permit Holder
X02 = Operation of Law Representative
X03 = Handgun being returned to the owner
X13 = FFL collector with COE (curio and relic handguns only)
X21 = Military - Active Duty
X22 = Military - Reserve
X25 = Military - Honorably Retired
X31 = Peace Officer - California - Active
X32 = Peace Officer - Federal - Active
X33 = Peace Officer - California - Honorably Retired
X34 = Peace Officer - California - Reserve
X35 = Peace Officer - Federal - Honorably Retired
X41 = Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) Permit Holder
X81 = P.O.S.T. 832 PC (Firearms) Training
X91 = Particular and Limited Authority Peace Officers
X95 = Law Enforcement Service Gun to Family Member
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-31-2011, 2:35 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
FYI, all gun shops can exempt CCW holders:
In light of all the FUD that issues forth from behind the counters I did not want to be too expansive. I'm sure there is some jerk out there that will want you to take the silly thing anyway.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-31-2011, 2:56 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
The law does not say that licensing authorities must have a standard of discretion that exceeds "self defense" and "non-prohibited", only that they *can*.

-Brandon
Again: The sheriff is mandated by law to evaluate the character and cause of each individual applicant.

A decision will be made. That is not shall issue. A sherif can make his county virtually shall issue, but not literally shall issue. No matter how wide his parameters a decision still must be made. Just because the law says he may issue does not mean it says he must issue. The latter circumstance is what we are striving for.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-31-2011, 3:14 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

You do realize that we actually file cases on these issues, right? I'm not sure if you're using semantics as a tool or if you think that it helps you make your argument. Also, I see that you didn't answer my hypothetical. Why is that?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-31-2011, 7:26 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
You do realize that we actually file cases on these issues, right?
Of course I do. But I also know that I have seen some of our respected legal minds here make exactly the same point that I am making;

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I'm not sure if you're using semantics as a tool or if you think that it helps you make your argument. Also, I see that you didn't answer my hypothetical. Why is that?
Hypothetical? I'll go back and see if I can figure out what you are talking about?
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-31-2011, 7:44 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
You do realize that we actually file cases on these issues, right? I'm not sure if you're using semantics as a tool or if you think that it helps you make your argument. Also, I see that you didn't answer my hypothetical. Why is that?
Is this your 'hypothetical"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Consider: a sheriff tells non-prohibited person Applicant A, aged 21, that their application is approved based on a showing of "self-defense" as good cause and their DOJ background check showing A as eligible to possess firearms as proof of their "good moral character". Such would be a lawful exercise of discretion.

Applicant B is a similarly-situated adult with identical facts. How *must* the sheriff exercise their discretion in the case of B?
If so, I assume you are saying both must be treated the same. I have no problem with this. Except possibly that "identical facts" would be very hard to come by in the real world, so let's just say very similar facts. This indeed is an equal protection question but it also goes to due process, because without the process the degree of similarity of circumstances can not be decerned.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-31-2011, 11:53 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Is this your 'hypothetical"?

If so, I assume you are saying both must be treated the same. I have no problem with this. Except possibly that "identical facts" would be very hard to come by in the real world, so let's just say very similar facts. This indeed is an equal protection question but it also goes to due process, because without the process the degree of similarity of circumstances can not be decerned.
So you do agree that a sheriff's discretion must be applied equally to similarly-situated applicants? If so, then consider how Sheriff Mims has exercised her discretion there in Fresno -- and what that means for applicants subsequent to the application of such discretion.

There's 3 different [core] issues to address in the overarching Initiative:

* Respect for Fed. constitutional right to bear under 2A/14A (shall-issue)
** After we have an expressly-acknowledged liberty interest in 2A/14A bear, we can invoke due process
* Violations of State and Fed. equal protection provisions
* Compliance with state statutes and relevant case law
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-01-2011, 5:36 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
So you do agree that a sheriff's discretion must be applied equally to similarly-situated applicants?
Yes; however similar circumstances must be to be considered the same is a question that has to be decided by the courts. I am sure there must be tons of precedent out there on the question, but even with the guidance of precedent it is a question on which reasonable men (and jurists) may differ. I probably should have stopped at ‘yes’ as I think we are pretty much in agreement here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
If so, then consider how Sheriff Mims has exercised her discretion there in Fresno -- and what that means for applicants subsequent to the application of such discretion.
I have no personal knowledge or evidence that Mims has slighted or favored anyone. All I have is innuendo about interview scheduling irregularities that have a funny smell to them. And complaints about long waits.
I understand that there is a time to lay down your cards and a time to hold them close to your vest. That is why in my original post in this thread I stated that I had volunteered and was on board and I hoped and trusted that the leadership knew what they were about. I will continue to be on board and take leaderships’ word for things as long as the mission is one of advice, assistance, and petitioning for redress. However, before I can support litigation I will need convincing evidence that Mims or her subordinates have, with malice, and or deliberate intent, subverted due process and or equal protection. Or, if it is simply a case of needing a precedent setting case, why a much less friendly and much more deserving county cannot be used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
There's 3 different [core] issues to address in the overarching Initiative:

* Respect for Fed. constitutional right to bear under 2A/14A (shall-issue)
Fresno is as close to this as you will find in CA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
** After we have an expressly-acknowledged liberty interest in 2A/14A bear, we can invoke due process
Great! Let’s go for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
* Violations of State and Fed. equal protection provisions
That’s interesting in light of the fact that you posted in another thread, about SB-610:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Moress, that's a foolish way to approach liberty. We can fix stupid equal protection issues easier than we can fix death by a thousand regulatory cuts.
Fresno has none of the problems SB-610 seeks to address. The fees are kept as small as possible and none are required until after approval of the good cause statement. That is one big reason why the Fresno policy statement does not match the CG CCW flowchart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
* Compliance with state statutes and relevant case law
But let’s give the carrot a real good try before we get to heavy handed with the stick.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-01-2011, 11:42 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Yes; however similar circumstances must be to be considered the same is a question that has to be decided by the courts. I am sure there must be tons of precedent out there on the question, but even with the guidance of precedent it is a question on which reasonable men (and jurists) may differ. I probably should have stopped at ‘yes’ as I think we are pretty much in agreement here.
I agree that we are either entirely or very close to entirely in agreement the licensing authorities are bound to longstanding equal protection precedent.

Quote:
I have no personal knowledge or evidence that Mims has slighted or favored anyone.
She, vis-a-vis her department, has, and I *do* have proof.

Quote:
All I have is innuendo about interview scheduling irregularities that have a funny smell to them. And complaints about long waits.
The complaints in re long waits are legitimate. The licensing authorities have a duty to accept and process applications. They asked for the job, they get to do it.

Quote:
I understand that there is a time to lay down your cards and a time to hold them close to your vest. That is why in my original post in this thread I stated that I had volunteered and was on board and I hoped and trusted that the leadership knew what they were about. I will continue to be on board and take leaderships’ word for things as long as the mission is one of advice, assistance, and petitioning for redress.
Trust that we have been, and continue, to *ask*. You would almost certainly know if we were moving to sue Fresno.

Quote:
However, before I can support litigation I will need convincing evidence that Mims or her subordinates have, with malice, and or deliberate intent, subverted due process and or equal protection. Or, if it is simply a case of needing a precedent setting case, why a much less friendly and much more deserving county cannot be used.
Because strategic litigation doesn't always work that way. You seem to see litigation as personal. We see litigation as a means to an end, though not the preferred means. We *always* ask - at least once - before we take legal action.

Quote:
Fresno is as close to this as you will find in CA.
Well, Fresno is closer to"good" than, say, Contra Costa or San Francisco, but real respect for 2A means having a lawful policy, fast processing times, reasonable fees, accepting simple self-defense as good cause, no moral character hoops except being verifiably not-prohibited...

Quote:
That’s interesting in light of the fact that you posted in another thread, about SB-610
I am at a loss as to what point you're trying to make here.

Quote:
Fresno has none of the problems SB-610 seeks to address. The fees are kept as small as possible and none are required until after approval of the good cause statement. That is one big reason why the Fresno policy statement does not match the CG CCW flowchart.
Again - not saying the law as-written is my preference, but you contradict yourself here. SB 610 *reiterates* existing law to make it clear that the state means what it said in AB 2022, and adds a statutory duty to explain denials. Fresno's policy does not match the process compelled by statute. Simple as that.

Quote:
But let’s give the carrot a real good try before we get to heavy handed with the stick.
As I said before, we have and continue to ask licensing authorities for their cooperation. We've offered to - at our expense - provide lawyer time with their staff to revise those policies and practices which are problematic or unlawful. I have personally met with counties counsel, supervisors, sheriffs (not deputies, but *the* sheriffs), and others at my own expense, travelling thousands of road miles to meet and have pleasant discussion with those we seek to assist.

We would rather not need to sue anyone. However, the sheriffs have almost universally chosen to litigate and fight over their little power centers of CCW issuance. One day I'll be able to tell you how I know that.

What folks have access to here and elsewhere online is about 5% of what is actually going on. Unfortunately, that may give some the impression that we're simply going around with a stick when, in fact, we've been trying to hand out carrots for over a year now.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 06-01-2011 at 11:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-03-2011, 8:20 AM
exklusve's Avatar
exklusve exklusve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
What folks have access to here and elsewhere online is about 5% of what is actually going on. Unfortunately, that may give some the impression that we're simply going around with a stick when, in fact, we've been trying to hand out carrots for over a year now.
-Brandon


This is why I always get a good chuckle when folks try to double guess and correct the guys in charge here.


Thanks again Brandon for your time and efforts you (and everyone else involved in this) spend helping out the rest of us!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-05-2011, 4:24 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exklusve View Post
This is why I always get a good chuckle when folks try to double guess and correct the guys in charge here.


Thanks again Brandon for your time and efforts you (and everyone else involved in this) spend helping out the rest of us!
I am not trying to second guess or correct anyone. I have the greatest respect for the leadership here; none more so than Brandon. If I did not I would not donate my time and money. The fact remains one is ultimately responsible for one’s own actions. "Trust me"; only goes so far. If things I would like to know are not yet ready to be aired publicly I can live with that. How have you supported the cause lately?
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-05-2011, 6:46 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post

She, vis-a-vis her department, has, and I *do* have proof.
I would actually be surprized if someone (or three) somewhere has not bumped his buddy to the top of the stack. That is well and truely an 'equal protection' problem. But I really dobt it is the main problem causing the delays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Because strategic litigation doesn't always work that way. You seem to see litigation as personal. We see litigation as a means to an end, though not the preferred means. We *always* ask - at least once - before we take legal action.
First, I imagin I do see this a little more personally, as it will effect my home, my taxes, and my local government services. And I will probably be paying for lawyers on both sides! Also, there are many local people who worked hard to get Mims elected mainly due to her pro 2A covictions. We made a real solid chage for the better here, not perfict, but remarkably better.

As far as being a means to an end, let me try this to show you where I am comming from.

Your end is to make the world safer for women:

1. Tom rapes and murders a woman.

2. Dick murders a woman.

4. Harry rapes a woman.

4. Rudy beats the crap out of a woman and steals her purse.

5. Lamont runs by a woman and snaches her purse.

You come along and say; "Mike, get your roap, we are going to go string up that rat bastard Lamont!"

I'm just sayin?

At some point I will need to understand why it is important to go after Lamont first or you ain't gitting my roap. Now I might help ya slap lamont around a little bit to show him the err of his ways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Well, Fresno is closer to"good" than, say, Contra Costa or San Francisco, but real respect for 2A means having a lawful policy, fast processing times, reasonable fees, accepting simple self-defense as good cause, no moral character hoops except being verifiably not-prohibited...
I agree that is our goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post

I am at a loss as to what point you're trying to make here.
Just that in regards Fresno equal protection is all important, but regards SB-610 you are ready to throw EP under the buss to eliminate buroughcratic dirty tricks that Fresno has already eliminated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post

As I said before, we have and continue to ask licensing authorities for their cooperation. We've offered to - at our expense - provide lawyer time with their staff to revise those policies and practices which are problematic or unlawful. I have personally met with counties counsel, supervisors, sheriffs (not deputies, but *the* sheriffs), and others at my own expense, travelling thousands of road miles to meet and have pleasant discussion with those we seek to assist.Again - not saying the law as-written is my preference, but you contradict yourself here. SB 610 *reiterates* existing law to make it clear that the state means what it said in AB 2022, and adds a statutory duty to explain denials. Fresno's policy does not match the process compelled by statute. Simple as that.

You are to be commended for your dedication and contribution, I have never questioned that, nor have I aluded that you or any other of our leadership do not know what they are doing. May I ask if this has included Fresno?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post

We would rather not need to sue anyone. However, the sheriffs have almost universally chosen to litigate and fight over their little power centers of CCW issuance. One day I'll be able to tell you how I know that.

What folks have access to here and elsewhere online is about 5% of what is actually going on. Unfortunately, that may give some the impression that we're simply going around with a stick when, in fact, we've been trying to hand out carrots for over a year now.

-Brandon
Perhaps bravado filled, caustic, confrontational, threatening rhetoric should be held until the backup information can be released at the same time?

Mike
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-05-2011, 10:17 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Meplat,

A few notes:

1. I was, in a number of posts, a bit short with you and I apologize for that.

2. SB610 no longer has any of the "legislator good cause" language. However, should it have remained a part of the bill, it's still a good bill because: a) the cleanup text significantly helps *all* applicants, and b) the exemptions *create* EP challenges/opportunities.

3. Lamont doesn't have the money to hire a top-tier law firm for the long haul, has little internal resources, and is located in a jurisdiction that is favorable to me. The appellate district in which Lamont resides moves fairly quickly. And, maybe, Lamont sort of agrees with me.

Conversely, Tom, Dick, Harry, and Rudy are rather wealthy. They have significant internal resources and tons of pro-bono time available to them. Their jurisdictions are unfavorable to me, and their courts of appeal can be somewhat painful. These guys cannot see the error of their ways, *at all*. Zero remorse.

Winning a case in a CA state court of appeals is binding on the entire state, including the jurisdictions of Tom, Dick, Harry, and Rudy.

My job is to secure a victory for (over) all of California. I don't [always] need to take on Tom, Dick, Harry, and Rudy to beat Tom, Dick, Harry, and Rudy.

4. Fresno has been reached out to, and we'll continue to try and work through the issues we see. Unless something changes, Fresno is not our Lamont.

5. There's no rhetoric - I cite the law and identify those who do not follow it. There's plenty of proof that violations exist. It's a binary analysis; either they are in compliance, or they are not. If not, then we want them to fix it.

I would be very pleased if you could help us there in Fresno by contacting the licensing authorities and suggesting their adoption of our model policy. You, too, (as well as all other residents) can offer carrots. We continue to seek out opportunities to work directly with the agencies to assist them in remedying their issues. I think grassroots support can go a long way to brokering such an outcome.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-06-2011, 10:13 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Meplat,

A few notes:

1. I was, in a number of posts, a bit short with you and I apologize for that.
You would not be the valuable asset to the cause that you are without passion, and I enjoy a spirited discussion. I can be irritating at times; I hope you’ll forgive that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
2. SB610 no longer has any of the "legislator good cause" language. However, should it have remained a part of the bill, it's still a good bill because: a) the cleanup text significantly helps *all* applicants, and b) the exemptions *create* EP challenges/opportunities.

3. Lamont doesn't have the money to hire a top-tier law firm for the long haul, has little internal resources, and is located in a jurisdiction that is favorable to me. The appellate district in which Lamont resides moves fairly quickly. And, maybe, Lamont sort of agrees with me.

Conversely, Tom, Dick, Harry, and Rudy are rather wealthy. They have significant internal resources and tons of pro-bono time available to them. Their jurisdictions are unfavorable to me, and their courts of appeal can be somewhat painful. These guys cannot see the error of their ways, *at all*. Zero remorse.

Winning a case in a CA state court of appeals is binding on the entire state, including the jurisdictions of Tom, Dick, Harry, and Rudy.

My job is to secure a victory for (over) all of California. I don't [always] need to take on Tom, Dick, Harry, and Rudy to beat Tom, Dick, Harry, and Rudy.

4. Fresno has been reached out to, and we'll continue to try and work through the issues we see. Unless something changes, Fresno is not our Lamont.
Now that was very well related, in terms even I can understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
5. There's no rhetoric - I cite the law and identify those who do not follow it. There's plenty of proof that violations exist. It's a binary analysis; either they are in compliance, or they are not. If not, then we want them to fix it.
A rose has a sweet aroma, a beautiful continence, and thorns. So can it be with truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I would be very pleased if you could help us there in Fresno by contacting the licensing authorities and suggesting their adoption of our model policy. You, too, (as well as all other residents) can offer carrots. We continue to seek out opportunities to work directly with the agencies to assist them in remedying their issues. I think grassroots support can go a long way to brokering such an outcome.

-Brandon
I am at the disposal of the cause. I need to better educate myself on the points of disagreement so as to be an effective and coherent advocate.

Mike
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-06-2011, 10:36 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
I am at the disposal of the cause. I need to better educate myself on the points of disagreement so as to be an effective and coherent advocate.

Mike
I look forward to meeting you for coffee sometime, then, as I find myself in the Fresno area much of the time these days.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-07-2011, 7:08 AM
exklusve's Avatar
exklusve exklusve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post

I would be very pleased if you could help us there in Fresno by contacting the licensing authorities and suggesting their adoption of our model policy. You, too, (as well as all other residents) can offer carrots. We continue to seek out opportunities to work directly with the agencies to assist them in remedying their issues. I think grassroots support can go a long way to brokering such an outcome.

-Brandon
Brandon,
In suggesting to the licensing authorities about adoption the calguns model policy, what would be the recommended way to do this? I got my CCW packet from the sheriffs office a few weeks ago and am waiting for the green light in this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-07-2011, 8:54 AM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I look forward to meeting you for coffee sometime, then, as I find myself in the Fresno area much of the time these days.

-Brandon
I look forward to it.

Mike
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-07-2011, 11:41 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exklusve View Post
Brandon,
In suggesting to the licensing authorities about adoption the calguns model policy, what would be the recommended way to do this? I got my CCW packet from the sheriffs office a few weeks ago and am waiting for the green light in this forum.
I'd suggest either hand-delivery under a cover letter explaining what the policy is and why you think they should adopt it, or by regular mail (with a similar cover letter).
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-11-2011, 3:11 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Letter To Sheriff

Brandon:

Am I correct in assuming that, at present, the main problems with Fresno CSD are noncompliance with the 90 day after application, or 30 day after DOJ report requirement, and stonewalling on the PRA request? Please advise if that assumption is correct. I would like to put the emphasis of my communication with FCSD where it will do the most good.

Mike
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-01-2011, 9:18 PM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,667
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

does anyone know what type of proof I need to show I live in Fresno County? I have no bills or anything showing I moved here.
Am I SOL?
__________________
CZ 75 SP-01 ROCKS!
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-01-2011, 9:58 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawk556 View Post
does anyone know what type of proof I need to show I live in Fresno County? I have no bills or anything showing I moved here.
Am I SOL?
No; submit your application and email me if you have a problem.

http://calgunsfoundation.org/downloa...nts/Fresno.pdf

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-01-2011, 11:24 PM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,667
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

either I missed it or it wasnt included in that packet. I didn't see anything about what fulfills the residency requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-02-2011, 1:56 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawk556 View Post
either I missed it or it wasnt included in that packet. I didn't see anything about what fulfills the residency requirements.
That is, indeed, the very point. Your application is certified by you and submitted under penalty of perjury; it does have a place for your residence address, does it not?

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-15-2011, 7:05 PM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,667
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
That is, indeed, the very point. Your application is certified by you and submitted under penalty of perjury; it does have a place for your residence address, does it not?

-Brandon
Yes it does. I was wondering if they would ask for apartment lease or something like as proof. Ill be submitting application very soon.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk
__________________
CZ 75 SP-01 ROCKS!
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-17-2012, 12:53 PM
Sebass's Avatar
Sebass Sebass is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cen Cal
Posts: 394
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Exclamation Current Backlog

Just thought I'd let everyone know, as of today the current backlog for initial appointment's is December 2012 . If anyone has to cancel for whatever reason please PM or post up here .
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-17-2012, 1:01 PM
greasemonkey greasemonkey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: www.CalgunsFoundation.org
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you were dating a deputy you could get an appointment tomorrow; if you were "in" with the right local businesses, you could get an appointment in a week or so. It's a fabricated backlog, want to apply in a couple weeks in accordance with CA law?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-17-2012, 1:58 PM
gonzales's Avatar
gonzales gonzales is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Reedley Ca
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greasemonkey View Post
If you were dating a deputy you could get an appointment tomorrow; if you were "in" with the right local businesses, you could get an appointment in a week or so. It's a fabricated backlog, want to apply in a couple weeks in accordance with CA law?
Would knowing several deputies also help. They are family friends and would only want to ask them if it will help me out. I just called today and they are sending me an e-mail with the packet but said they are backed up till December 2012!
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-20-2012, 10:37 AM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,667
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

anyone know of a CCW class that is approved by PD? "the range" is approved but their schedule doesn't fit mine.
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 11:27 PM.




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.