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 09-12-2011, 11:42 AM
Wild Squid Wild Squid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 499
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default What's the Status of Shall Issue CCW in major CA metropolis?

Yea Yea I know, read this and search that first. I have and there is no clear answer, so might as well have a discussion about it. For those who do not wish to discuss please just keep out and no negative comments.

What's the Status of Shall Issue CCW in major CA metropolis? Bay Area and LA County for example? Why is it taking so long and what case is holding it up now? Why is that taking so long? Realistically how many years will it be til this comes to fruition? Back in '08 I heard maybe 1.5 years. Now it still seems years away and I'm tired of waiting. I see changes in other states but CA and the Brady bunch is still whipping our arses up and down the courts.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-12-2011, 12:04 PM
morfeeis's Avatar
morfeeis morfeeis is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Freeman in Mesa AZ
Posts: 7,601
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...play.php?f=116
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayn Rand View Post
You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-12-2011, 12:08 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,326
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

__________________
"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
  #4  
Old 09-12-2011, 12:32 PM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Squid,

Take a look at our litigation Wiki, the two cases with pink highlights have petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to be heard. Chances are good they'll be taken up, and we are hoping it will be very soon. And therefore have a positive ruling by June 2012.

Best estimates are that sometime next year we could have licenses to carry in California.

The courts are slow; litigation takes time, however, the courts will work much faster with each win. Ezell was our latest win in the 7th circuit.

Hope this helps.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-12-2011, 1:01 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The major metropolitan areas in CA (other than Sacramento) are not likely to issue until the supreme court forces the issue. Those in the know think that will happen in June of next year. It should take only a few months after that for California to start issuing carry licenses to any law abiding Californian who wants one.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-12-2011, 1:14 PM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
The major metropolitan areas in CA (other than Sacramento) are not likely to issue until the supreme court forces the issue. Those in the know think that will happen in June of next year. It should take only a few months after that for California to start issuing carry licenses to any law abiding Californian who wants one.
When you say California, do you mean Ca DOJ, or every police and sheriff's department in California ?
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-12-2011, 1:16 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
When you say California, do you mean Ca DOJ, or every police and sheriff's department in California ?
I doubt we'll see a change in the issuing authority before SCOTUS rules on carry.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-12-2011, 1:16 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
The major metropolitan areas in CA (other than Sacramento) are not likely to issue until the supreme court forces the issue. Those in the know think that will happen in June of next year. It should take only a few months after that for California to start issuing carry licenses to any law abiding Californian who wants one.

Those that know think it will almost certainly happen next June. However, should that not happen, the following June is as close to a certainty as can be imagined.

However, even after that, there will be some courts who need stamping on before they will see sense ("Well, the Supremes only said it was OK to carry when coming home from your G/f's house, they said nothing specifically that said you could carry your firearm on the outbound trip!")

HOWEVER, This definitely depends on the makeup of the Supreme Court. We really must do our best to make sure that Obama (or Hillary, or anyone of like mind) does not get chance to appoint Supreme Justices (O.K., I know a Republican could appoint someone just as bad for us, but our chances are much better.)

Any one of our forum members who supports Obama directly or indirectly (voting for a no-hoper) is putting our gun rights a long way behind other topics. Frankly, I can't understand why we still have so many of them.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.


Last edited by Glock22Fan; 09-12-2011 at 1:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-12-2011, 1:20 PM
Anchors's Avatar
Anchors Anchors is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 5,927
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
The major metropolitan areas in CA (other than Sacramento) are not likely to issue until the supreme court forces the issue. Those in the know think that will happen in June of next year. It should take only a few months after that for California to start issuing carry licenses to any law abiding Californian who wants one.
Well. Assuming the case gets cert in June, we still have to wait for it to be heard and then wait for the decision to be released. We all know how much those judges like to write.

Or are we thinking it will get cert sooner and resolve by June?
I hope one of the "good cases" climbs the totem pole before some of the not so good ones (Oregon; MedMJ/CCW).

Either way, I can't wait to see California go shall-issue. It will be a beautiful thing.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-12-2011, 1:25 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

June is the end of the session. If one of the cases is granted cert the opinion would be released no later than June. Heller and McDonald were both released in the last week of the session. Richards, Peruta et. al. will still be active at come level and could move for an immediate summary judgement. Either of those cases could allow e judge to merely strike down the good cause and/or good moral character portion of the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanAnchors View Post
Well. Assuming the case gets cert in June, we still have to wait for it to be heard and then wait for the decision to be released. We all know how much those judges like to write.

Or are we thinking it will get cert sooner and resolve by June?
I hope one of the "good cases" climbs the totem pole before some of the not so good ones (Oregon; MedMJ/CCW).

Either way, I can't wait to see California go shall-issue. It will be a beautiful thing.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-12-2011, 1:25 PM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
I doubt we'll see a change in the issuing authority before SCOTUS rules on carry.
Well yeah, if nobody's going to issue before any ruling is made that forces them to issue, I understand that. But I wonder if California will take issuance from police and sheriff's and make DOJ the sole issuing authority if ruling is made in favor of shall issue. If not, I can think of a few LEAs that will slow play it and delay issuance as much as possible if they are forced.
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-12-2011, 1:31 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Well yeah, if nobody's going to issue before any ruling is made that forces them to issue, I understand that. But I wonder if California will take issuance from police and sheriff's and make DOJ the sole issuing authority if ruling is made in favor of shall issue. If not, I can think of a few LEAs that will slow play it and delay issuance as much as possible if they are forced.
Now you are starting to see some of the strategy that CGF has in place. I suspect that a large part of the reason Gray and Brandon are focusing on legal compliance right now is so that they can take more direct action in a shall issue environment. E denial of a civil right by a .gov official is one of the few times you can pierce qualified immunity and hold them personally responsible.

By the time we get "shall issue" all the sheriffs will know just how LNG their process is taking and they will know that any intentional delays cannot be hidden from the sunshine initiative.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-12-2011, 1:48 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default





Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Now you are starting to see some of the strategy that CGF has in place. I suspect that a large part of the reason Gray and Brandon are focusing on legal compliance right now is so that they can take more direct action in a shall issue environment. E denial of a civil right by a .gov official is one of the few times you can pierce qualified immunity and hold them personally responsible.

By the time we get "shall issue" all the sheriffs will know just how LNG their process is taking and they will know that any intentional delays cannot be hidden from the sunshine initiative.
__________________
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
  #14  
Old 09-12-2011, 1:54 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Well yeah, if nobody's going to issue before any ruling is made that forces them to issue, I understand that. But I wonder if California will take issuance from police and sheriff's and make DOJ the sole issuing authority if ruling is made in favor of shall issue. If not, I can think of a few LEAs that will slow play it and delay issuance as much as possible if they are forced.
One thing you also need to consider is that there are MANY counties in this state that DO issue. CGN is going after a STATE law that some sheriffs choose to ignore and then there are those that issue like Texas but under CA state law. When the SHTF for the non issuers in court, they will stand all alone by themselves as to why they won't issue.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-12-2011, 3:53 PM
Fjold's Avatar
Fjold Fjold is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Bakersfield
Posts: 20,603
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

In the 5th, 6th and 9th largest cities in California it's almost "shall issue".
__________________
Frank


One rifle, one planet - Holland's 375

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/Fjold/member8325.png

Life Member NRA, CRPA and SAF
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-12-2011, 10:46 PM
Wild Squid Wild Squid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 499
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
In the 5th, 6th and 9th largest cities in California it's almost "shall issue".

The important thing is I can't get get CCW in Alameda.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-12-2011, 10:48 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Squid View Post
The important thing is I can't get get CCW in Alameda.
Yet.

-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
  #18  
Old 09-13-2011, 6:37 AM
socal2310 socal2310 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Camarillo, CA (Ventura County)
Posts: 808
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Yet.

-Gene
Or Ventura County...
__________________
Bless, O Lord, this creature beer, which thou hast deigned to produce from the fat of grain: that it may be a salutary remedy to the human race, and grant through the invocation of thy holy name; that, whoever shall drink it, may gain health in body and peace in soul. Through Christ our Lord. Amen
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-13-2011, 8:24 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Now you are starting to see some of the strategy that CGF has in place. I suspect that a large part of the reason Gray and Brandon are focusing on legal compliance right now is so that they can take more direct action in a shall issue environment. E denial of a civil right by a .gov official is one of the few times you can pierce qualified immunity and hold them personally responsible.

By the time we get "shall issue" all the sheriffs will know just how LNG their process is taking and they will know that any intentional delays cannot be hidden from the sunshine initiative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post


Please explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
One thing you also need to consider is that there are MANY counties in this state that DO issue. CGN is going after a STATE law that some sheriffs choose to ignore and then there are those that issue like Texas but under CA state law. When the SHTF for the non issuers in court, they will stand all alone by themselves as to why they won't issue.
I understand that, but there are counties, like San Bernardino, that make you jump through hoops and put requirements on an applicant that 12050 doesn't require. They claim that they are CCW friendly, but what's the ratio of applicants to people getting their permission slip ? Typically, what does San Bernardino view as "Good Moral Character", and what, other than the obvious prohibitions, causes San Bernardino to deny a permission slip to an applicant ?

To me, "Good Moral Character" is a subjective term that the Sheriff or Police Chief, if s/he issues, defines. So a person could be granted or denied on a very broad and obscure interpretation of "Good Moral Character".

For example, what if a person has a prior arrest in San Bernardino county for 12025, or the overly broad law 148 ? I mean how many ways can a person resist, obstruct, or delay a peace officer in the performance of their duties ? Will San Bernardino deny a permission slip for that ?

Now how about Fresno county ? Margaret Mims is supposed to be the most openly "Shall Issue" sheriff from what I've read. But still, what is the ratio of applicants to people actually getting permission slips ? Does she openly advertise the fact that she issues, so that county residents are aware that they can get one ? What about fees ? Length of residence in the county ? Restrictions on permission slip ?

Understand that I'm not looking down on those departments, but I'm thinking that very few people even know they can apply, so their openly "Shall Issue" policies are at best, dubious.
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-13-2011, 8:29 AM
morfeeis's Avatar
morfeeis morfeeis is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Freeman in Mesa AZ
Posts: 7,601
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Squid View Post
The important thing is I can't get get CCW in Alameda.
what about an LTC?
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayn Rand View Post
You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-13-2011, 8:43 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Please explain.



I understand that, but there are counties, like San Bernardino, that make you jump through hoops and put requirements on an applicant that 12050 doesn't require. They claim that they are CCW friendly, but what's the ratio of applicants to people getting their permission slip ? Typically, what does San Bernardino view as "Good Moral Character", and what, other than the obvious prohibitions, causes San Bernardino to deny a permission slip to an applicant ?

To me, "Good Moral Character" is a subjective term that the Sheriff or Police Chief, if s/he issues, defines. So a person could be granted or denied on a very broad and obscure interpretation of "Good Moral Character".

For example, what if a person has a prior arrest in San Bernardino county for 12025, or the overly broad law 148 ? I mean how many ways can a person resist, obstruct, or delay a peace officer in the performance of their duties ? Will San Bernardino deny a permission slip for that ?

Now how about Fresno county ? Margaret Mims is supposed to be the most openly "Shall Issue" sheriff from what I've read. But still, what is the ratio of applicants to people actually getting permission slips ? Does she openly advertise the fact that she issues, so that county residents are aware that they can get one ? What about fees ? Length of residence in the county ? Restrictions on permission slip ?

Understand that I'm not looking down on those departments, but I'm thinking that very few people even know they can apply, so their openly "Shall Issue" policies are at best, dubious.
TBJ's advice to prospective applicants in S.B. is that if you don't drool during your interview, you will probably be OK.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-13-2011, 9:05 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
TBJ's advice to prospective applicants in S.B. is that if you don't drool during your interview, you will probably be OK.
Drooling, as in coveting an LTC that much ? Or drooling, as in idiot ?
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-13-2011, 9:38 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
P
Understand that I'm not looking down on those departments, but I'm thinking that very few people even know they can apply, so their openly "Shall Issue" policies are at best, dubious.
One of the reasons CCW and Sheriffs elections don't get more traction with gunnies is because even with promulgation of CCW and in an essentially shall-issue county, a max of somewhere around 3% of reg'd voters in that county ever apply for (let alone receive) CCW.
__________________

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
  #24  
Old 09-13-2011, 9:57 AM
Mstrty's Avatar
Mstrty Mstrty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,423
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
One of the reasons CCW and Sheriffs elections don't get more traction with gunnies is because even with promulgation of CCW and in an essentially shall-issue county, a max of somewhere around 3% of reg'd voters in that county ever apply for (let alone receive) CCW.
LTC
__________________
~ ~
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-13-2011, 10:14 AM
lhecker51's Avatar
lhecker51 lhecker51 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Corona
Posts: 582
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
The major metropolitan areas in CA (other than Sacramento) are not likely to issue until the supreme court forces the issue. Those in the know think that will happen in June of next year. It should take only a few months after that for California to start issuing carry licenses to any law abiding Californian who wants one.
I do not think that a SCOTUS decision will force LA county to issue permits as they are currently flaunting orders to establish a process for CCW. The US DOJ will choose not to pursue enforcement due to the current administration environment. I predict that LA county will continue to disregard any laws and will only comply under direct & enforceable threat.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-13-2011, 11:33 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,160
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
One of the reasons CCW and Sheriffs elections don't get more traction with gunnies is because even with promulgation of CCW and in an essentially shall-issue county, a max of somewhere around 3% of reg'd voters in that county ever apply for (let alone receive) CCW.
Which turns out to be a fairly consistent percentage of the eligible carriers across the country.

Despite the level of interest on gun boards, by far most people have no interest in carrying on a regular basis.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-13-2011, 12:25 PM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lhecker51 View Post
I do not think that a SCOTUS decision will force LA county to issue permits as they are currently flaunting orders to establish a process for CCW. The US DOJ will choose not to pursue enforcement due to the current administration environment. I predict that LA county will continue to disregard any laws and will only comply under direct & enforceable threat.
If any Sheriffs' office are not complying with the SCOTUS's ruling then a lawsuit will be filed and an order from a federal judge will compel the sheriff to issue permits. LA county may be one of the ones that sued. It's not that hard once we have the right. This is has been discussed before in many other threads.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-13-2011, 12:38 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
I understand that, but there are counties, like San Bernardino, that make you jump through hoops and put requirements on an applicant that 12050 doesn't require. They claim that they are CCW friendly, but what's the ratio of applicants to people getting their permission slip ? Typically, what does San Bernardino view as "Good Moral Character", and what, other than the obvious prohibitions, causes San Bernardino to deny a permission slip to an applicant ?

To me, "Good Moral Character" is a subjective term that the Sheriff or Police Chief, if s/he issues, defines. So a person could be granted or denied on a very broad and obscure interpretation of "Good Moral Character".

For example, what if a person has a prior arrest in San Bernardino county for 12025, or the overly broad law 148 ? I mean how many ways can a person resist, obstruct, or delay a peace officer in the performance of their duties ? Will San Bernardino deny a permission slip for that ?

Now how about Fresno county ? Margaret Mims is supposed to be the most openly "Shall Issue" sheriff from what I've read. But still, what is the ratio of applicants to people actually getting permission slips ? Does she openly advertise the fact that she issues, so that county residents are aware that they can get one ? What about fees ? Length of residence in the county ? Restrictions on permission slip ?

Understand that I'm not looking down on those departments, but I'm thinking that very few people even know they can apply, so their openly "Shall Issue" policies are at best, dubious.
I think you are missing my point.

The state is MAY issue, the sheriffs have discretion, some issue and some don't. regardless of where you fall in the spectrum, A carry decision will make it very hard for non issuing sheriffs to NOT issue. IN THIS STATE, how can a sheriff after a scotus decision not issue in this state when other sheriffs are complying with the laws? They will be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-13-2011, 1:33 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Drooling, as in coveting an LTC that much ? Or drooling, as in idiot ?
Yes.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-13-2011, 3:52 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Please explain.
You and Dan get very close to one tactical feature of the Initiative. However, I simply cannot go into detail on more than I already have. Only through the passage of time will all facets be revealed.

-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
  #31  
Old 09-13-2011, 6:32 PM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
If any Sheriffs' office are not complying with the SCOTUS's ruling then a lawsuit will be filed and an order from a federal judge will compel the sheriff to issue permits. LA county may be one of the ones that sued. It's not that hard once we have the right. This is has been discussed before in many other threads.
OH! How sweet it would be to see that noose slowly tighten around the neck of the LASD!!
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-13-2011, 6:34 PM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
You and Dan get very close to one tactical feature of the Initiative. However, I simply cannot go into detail on more than I already have. Only through the passage of time will all facets be revealed.-Brandon
All in due time my dear. Yes, yes all in due time!
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-16-2011, 5:21 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,248
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Which turns out to be a fairly consistent percentage of the eligible carriers across the country.

Despite the level of interest on gun boards, by far most people have no interest in carrying on a regular basis.
I find it humorous how many gunnies look down their noses at .380s and J-frames and don't carry rather than be caught carrying either one of those.

Irrational!
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
185+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-17-2011, 7:22 AM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,287
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
If any Sheriffs' office are not complying with the SCOTUS's ruling then a lawsuit will be filed and an order from a federal judge will compel the sheriff to issue permits.
Unless the FBI is on their doorstep, LA will certainly ignore that order. Are you taking any bets on whether Holder will enforce that ruling?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-17-2011, 7:47 AM
vantec08 vantec08 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Beaumont
Posts: 3,801
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
Unless the FBI is on their doorstep, LA will certainly ignore that order. Are you taking any bets on whether Holder will enforce that ruling?
Indeed. The entire object of forcing compliance depends SOLEY on federal enforcement. It will be meaningless until a price is put on the personality(s) of those who make the decision to not comply.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-17-2011, 9:46 AM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,778
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
Unless the FBI is on their doorstep, LA will certainly ignore that order. Are you taking any bets on whether Holder will enforce that ruling?
FBI? I thought it was US Marshalls that show up when elected officials are ignoring court orders.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-17-2011, 9:49 AM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,778
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
Unless the FBI is on their doorstep, LA will certainly ignore that order. Are you taking any bets on whether Holder will enforce that ruling?
One more reason why the Dems can't be allowed to hold the Whitehouse in the next election.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-17-2011, 9:53 AM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,778
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post

Any one of our forum members who supports Obama directly or indirectly (voting for a no-hoper) is putting our gun rights a long way behind other topics. Frankly, I can't understand why we still have so many of them.
Hey, I know someone in the freaking Members' Council who doesn't think LTC is all that important and, in fact, seems mildly uncomfortable with the idea of a lot of people walking around with guns. I'm pretty sure he intends to vote for Obama.

The gun rights movement is riddled with people who have their heads lodged in dark, smelly places.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-17-2011, 10:56 AM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Despite the level of interest on gun boards, by far most people have no interest in carrying on a regular basis.
I will certainly apply for a LTC/CCW but I doubt I will carry regularly.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-17-2011, 2:19 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,287
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
FBI? I thought it was US Marshalls that show up when elected officials are ignoring court orders.
Whoever it is, I don't see them enforcing a pro-gun order against LA if both the AG and President ask them not to. What do you think the chances are that Holder and Obama forget to ask them not to?
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 12:16 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.