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 12-20-2015, 1:08 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation We need to change CGNers' CCW advice "policy" for anti counties



I think we CGNers have an unwritten, informal "policy", and thus practice of advising CAians in anti counties not to bother contacting their PDs and SOs with requests for CCWs since they're highly unlikely to get approved, to instead wait until we win Shall Issue via the federal courts (Peruta, etc).

At this stage of the game, I now think this policy not only does not help our cause, I think it actually hurts it.

I think this made us a miss a golden opportunity after the San Bernardino terrorist attack. We see now there has been a MASSIVE flood of applicants for CCWs in the pro-CCW counties around the state. Telling people in anti counties to not even bother to try in anti counties takes political pressure off of the anti sheriffs, makes them think voters in their counties are content being disarmed sheep. Even just posting that sort of advice should not be done anymore since many potential applicants don't post, they just visit or lurk on CGN and will read that and not bother calling up their SO to ask about getting a CCW.

We, CGNers, should now routinely advise people in anti counties to call their sheriffs to POLITELY DEMAND they issue more CCWs. (Remind whoever you deal with that the sheriff is a politician, an elected official who can be replaced at the next election.) (Protesters for all other "civil rights" like "gay marriage" and abortion make "demands" for their rights, why can't we???) We should "be prepared" (as the Boy Scouts say) to follow Democrat Rahm Emmanuel's advice to exploit the next crisis (school shooter, mall shooter, terrorist attack, etc), to ENCOURAGE a MASSIVE number of people to call the anti SOs to POLITELY DEMAND that sheriff issue more CCWs or face the wrath of the voters at the next election.

In the past 2 weeks I read about a poll that said after the terrorist attacks (Paris, San Bernardino), Americans thought arming more private citizens was better than more gun control to stop these attacks. http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...make-us-safer/

Terrorists' crises are giving us our political opening, our opportunity. We must not "waste" it by letting it slip by....

ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I should have mentioned in the OP that we should advise them to call the general, non-emergency number for both their police department and sheriff's office, that way more people in the department realize that they're getting flooded with requests (after the next terrorist attack), whereas if they call the direct CCW # only the antis who take care of CCWs will ever know how many people are calling in.
__________________
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
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 12-23-2015 at 11:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-20-2015, 3:49 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,002
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I agree 100%. For far too long the "Right People" convinced anyone that would listen to wait passively and do nothing but write checks while waiting for the courts to ride to our rescue. They were wrong! The courts are not coming to our rescue so we're going to have to rely on political pressure. Anti-rights sheriffs aren't going to like hundreds or thousands of voters showing up and politely demanding CCWs, but it sends them an important message.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-20-2015, 4:04 PM
JohnCCW's Avatar
JohnCCW JohnCCW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Madera County
Posts: 1,046
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can't argue with facts...
Guess we can encourage noob's to piss into the wind.
__________________
Don't ask how many guns I own, I lost count.
Rick Perry? Ted Cruz for President 2016
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-20-2015, 5:04 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The map should be divided into two colors- red indicating 'may issue' and green indicating 'shall issue'. If anyone,... particularly those who made it were being honest, every county would be red.

I must say that I am only in partial agreement with the OP. But, there isn't any rule, informal, unwritten or otherwise suggesting people should not apply to non-issuing agencies. More than anything else, people themselves will not apply because they do not have the resources to burn either to be told 'no' or to waste on complying with unlawful policy requirements.

I would encourage people to apply to their county and city agencies according to the lawful process as outlined by the Calguns Foundation. Applicants are not obligated to pay anything other than 20% of the local fees and the LiveScan fee with your application. If they mean to tell you 'no' get it in writing, as per the penal code as it relates to carry licensing.

Now, even if there were a flood of applications, this wont do anything but force agencies to warm up their 'denied' rubber stamp. What this does do, is establish that you tried the legal way to carry a gun.

Then you need to decide what is important to you- whether your life is worth defending and what risk is necessary to preserve it. For some, that means carrying a loaded concealed pistol. Others, that they leave it unloaded in a locked case, or for that matter, locked in the safe at home. For those who must carry a loaded concealed handgun, the denial letter may become important in the future.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Last edited by QuarterBoreGunner; 12-21-2015 at 9:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-20-2015, 6:21 PM
bountyhunter bountyhunter is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,125
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post

The map should be divided into two colors- red indicating 'may issue' and green indicating 'shall issue'. If anyone,... particularly those who made it were being honest, every county would be red.


I personally called the chief of police of my city and spoke to his secretary and she said I could come in and fll out a request for a CCW.

I asked how long since one was approved and she did not know, it was more than 20+ years because that's how long she had worked there.

So, technically, he "may issue" one but that's as likely as a unicorn walking in the door.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-20-2015, 8:04 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
If I could set fire to that map made by the CalCCW group so that it would never be shared again I would. It is a f*****g lie, perpetuated by liars.

The map should be divided into two colors- red indicating 'may issue' and green indicating 'shall issue'. If anyone,... particularly those who made it were being honest, every county would be red.

I must say that I am only in partial agreement with the OP. But, there isn't any rule, informal, unwritten or otherwise suggesting people should not apply to non-issuing agencies. More than anything else, people themselves will not apply because they do not have the resources to burn either to be told 'no' or to waste on complying with unlawful policy requirements.

I would encourage people to apply to their county and city agencies according to the lawful process as outlined by the Calguns Foundation. Applicants are not obligated to pay anything other than 20% of the local fees and the LiveScan fee with your application. If they mean to tell you 'no' get it in writing, as per the penal code as it relates to carry licensing.

Now, even if there were a flood of applications, this wont do anything but force agencies to warm up their 'denied' rubber stamp. What this does do, is establish that you tried the legal way to carry a gun.

Then you need to decide what is important to you- whether your life is worth defending and what risk is necessary to preserve it. For some, that means carrying a loaded concealed pistol. Others, that they leave it unloaded in a locked case, or for that matter, locked in the safe at home. For those who must carry a loaded concealed handgun, the denial letter may become important in the future.
You make some good points.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-20-2015, 8:51 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
The map should be divided into two colors- red indicating 'may issue' and green indicating 'shall issue'. If anyone,... particularly those who made it were being honest, every county would be red.
Who would equate the handful of CCWs issued by SFSO with the >7,000 CCWs outstanding by Sac SO and >7,000 Orange SO as of this year? (There have been CGN threads on Orange and Sac passing 7,000 you can search to find.)

Anyone can go thru CGF's last state-wide CCW survey and see that CitaDeL doesn't know what he's talking about claiming every county should be considered the same:
CGF's Dec 2013 state-wide survey of CCW issuance: http://calgunsfoundation.org/carry-i...eport-2013.pdf

Or compare what this news article found re. CCW issuance as of Dec 2014. Even they say in the title of their article, "Want to carry a concealed gun? Live in Sacramento, not San Francisco."
https://www.revealnews.org/article/w...san-francisco/

Or, you can merely read the last few pages of posts in Sac, San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, Ventura, Orange and Riverside and see that there's no equivalence between them and, let's say Alameda, CoCoCo, Santa Clara, Los Angeles or any of the other red/dark red counties.

FWIW his whole rant was Off Topic. Back on topic now...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
I must say that I am only in partial agreement with the OP. But, there isn't any rule, informal, unwritten or otherwise suggesting people should not apply to non-issuing agencies. More than anything else, people themselves will not apply because they do not have the resources to burn either to be told 'no' or to waste on complying with unlawful policy requirements.

I would encourage people to apply to their county and city agencies according to the lawful process as outlined by the Calguns Foundation. Applicants are not obligated to pay anything other than 20% of the local fees and the LiveScan fee with your application. If they mean to tell you 'no' get it in writing, as per the penal code as it relates to carry licensing.

Now, even if there were a flood of applications, this wont do anything but force agencies to warm up their 'denied' rubber stamp. What this does do, is establish that you tried the legal way to carry a gun.
I only mentioned calling and politely demanding the sheriff issue more CCWs. CitaDeL is the one suggesting applying, which would be a waste of time, money and effort at this point IMO. Better to save that money to support viable pro-CCW challengers, if any, against the remaining 15 anti county sheriffs in the next election.
__________________
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
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 12-23-2015 at 11:27 PM.. Reason: eliminate the useless drama
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-20-2015, 9:40 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,605
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Wow. You really are (self-censored)! LOL!

Who else would equate the handful of CCWs issued by SFSO with the >7,000 CCWs outstanding by Sac SO and >7,000 Orange SO as of this year. (There have been CGN threads on Orange and Sac passing 7,000 you can search to find.)

Anyone can go thru CGF's last state-wide CCW survey and see that CitaDeL doesn't know what he's talking about claiming every county should be considered the same:
CGF's Dec 2013 state-wide survey of CCW issuance: http://calgunsfoundation.org/carry-i...eport-2013.pdf

Or compare what this news article found re. CCW issuance as of Dec 2014. Even they say in the title of their article, "Want to carry a concealed gun? Live in Sacramento, not San Francisco."
https://www.revealnews.org/article/w...san-francisco/

Or, you can merely read the last few pages of posts in Sac, San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, Ventura, Orange and Riverside and see that there's no equivalence between them and, let's say Alameda, CoCoCo, Santa Clara, Los Angeles or any of the other red/dark red counties.

EVERYBODY: you now know how much weight & credibility to give CitaDeL's posts. Whether CitaDeL is, to use his own words, a "liar" or not, I'll leave to your judgment.

FWIW his whole rant was Off Topic. Back on topic now...


I only mentioned calling and politely demanding the sheriff issue more CCWs. CitaDeL is the one suggesting applying, which would be a waste of time, money and effort at this point IMO. Better to save that money to support viable pro-CCW challengers, if any, against the remaining 15 anti county sheriffs in the next election.
Politely "Demanding" is an oxymoron.

I can tell you that one notorious "non-issue - no way" jurisdiction issued recently to someone who had all their ducks in a row. Based on that, I have a faint hope that someone close to me (every cert a civilian can have in terms of training, does a lot of public service work in parts of the County that are high crime) might also be approved. Not that I'm optimistic - or that these infringements are in any way legal - but I think there are enough facts in the record to start to concern even the most recalcitrant public official (outside of LA & Yolo County) that continued total head up the arse is a path not well taken.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-20-2015, 9:40 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: O.C. CA. now Occupied Territory.
Posts: 16,469
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by bountyhunter View Post
I personally called the chief of police of my city and spoke to his secretary and she said I could come in and fll out a request for a CCW.

I asked how long since one was approved and she did not know, it was more than 20+ years because that's how long she had worked there.

So, technically, he "may issue" one but that's as likely as a unicorn walking in the door.
uhh don't you have to the sheriff of the county you live in that is usually the issuing agency not chief of police?
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boberama View Post
Ok. You should know how to play. I say I see something that begins with a letter.
You find out what it is.
I spy with my little eye something that begins with a "C".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInSoCal View Post
Chlamydia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyXbones View Post
The silhouette of an AR-15 is as appealing to the general public as a dildo.
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:20 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Wow. You really are (self-censored)! LOL!

Who else would equate the handful of CCWs issued by SFSO with the >7,000 CCWs outstanding by Sac SO and >7,000 Orange SO as of this year. (There have been CGN threads on Orange and Sac passing 7,000 you can search to find.)

Anyone can go thru CGF's last state-wide CCW survey and see that CitaDeL doesn't know what he's talking about claiming every county should be considered the same:
CGF's Dec 2013 state-wide survey of CCW issuance: http://calgunsfoundation.org/carry-i...eport-2013.pdf

Or compare what this news article found re. CCW issuance as of Dec 2014. Even they say in the title of their article, "Want to carry a concealed gun? Live in Sacramento, not San Francisco."
https://www.revealnews.org/article/w...san-francisco/

Or, you can merely read the last few pages of posts in Sac, San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, Ventura, Orange and Riverside and see that there's no equivalence between them and, let's say Alameda, CoCoCo, Santa Clara, Los Angeles or any of the other red/dark red counties.

EVERYBODY: you now know how much weight & credibility to give CitaDeL's posts. Whether CitaDeL is, to use his own words, a "liar" or not, I'll leave to your judgment.

FWIW his whole rant was Off Topic. Back on topic now...


I only mentioned calling and politely demanding the sheriff issue more CCWs. CitaDeL is the one suggesting applying, which would be a waste of time, money and effort at this point IMO. Better to save that money to support viable pro-CCW challengers, if any, against the remaining 15 anti county sheriffs in the next election.
I think you misunderstand. First, the map. The reality is, California is may issue. No matter how you attenuate the wording, every sheriff will use some level of discretion, and even in those places where many licenses are issued, they can, have, and will adopt policies that would deny someone their right to carry. That makes the CalCCW map invalid, because it can be outdated by the decision of a single government official to either individually or collectively deny applications for reasons other than prohibited status.

On your suggestion that people 'politely' do anything; some of these people you are suggesting we politely demand are going to politely say 'no'. A flood of inquiries or applications isn't going to change their mind. Whosoever wants to carry a gun should go apply whether or not their issuing agency is reputed to issue. If it is a 'no' let them put it in writing.
Applicants shouldn't be awaiting the go ahead from anyone, because both issuing agencies and gun rights advocates shouldn't be making your decisions about whether or not you are armed in public with a loaded handgun. That is your responsibility and your choice to make. It is not a political wedge that has any power in California.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:40 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Hot part of Ventura County
Posts: 931
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
The map should be divided into two colors- red indicating 'may issue' and green indicating 'shall issue'. If anyone,... particularly those who made it were being honest, every county would be red.
It's made by the folks over at CalCCW Forums. Feel free to go suggest the change you'd like, but don't hold your breath, and don't expect to be a member for very long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
I think you misunderstand. First, the map. The reality is, California is may issue. No matter how you attenuate the wording, every sheriff will use some level of discretion, and even in those places where many licenses are issued, they can, have, and will adopt policies that would deny someone their right to carry. That makes the CalCCW map invalid, because it can be outdated by the decision of a single government official to either individually or collectively deny applications for reasons other than prohibited status.
They update it fairly regularly, on average every 3 to 4 months, when evidence from members or from the local SD itself, indicates the status has changes. As far as denying, you are correct. As long as the state maintains a policy of "May Issue" and allows discretion other than the ability to pass a background investigation as an option to each individual SD or CoP, nothing will change. Anyone who thinks the body of foolish Individuals that is out legislature will change anything for the better can PM me about some Ocean front property I have for sale in NV. Even if we did convince all of the SDs that they should move to Shall Issue, the state would then simply change the rules and take the power away from them and put it into the hands of the CA DOJ. The NO ONE would get a CCW in the state, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bountyhunter View Post
I personally called the chief of police of my city and spoke to his secretary and she said I could come in and fll out a request for a CCW.

I asked how long since one was approved and she did not know, it was more than 20+ years because that's how long she had worked there.

So, technically, he "may issue" one but that's as likely as a unicorn walking in the door.
I spoke with my CoP and he told me that while the state, the county and the City by-laws allow him to issue, he defers to the SD. Why? Because the process costs money and he doesn't have much of it. He's trying to pay his officers better salary's to keep them from jumping to better paying jobs in the county, and while he may be sympathetic to individuals who would desire a CCW it's just not in the fiscal cards for such a small department. Fortunately my Sherriff is Virtual Shall issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Whosoever wants to carry a gun should go apply whether or not their issuing agency is reputed to issue. If it is a 'no' let them put it in writing.
Applicants shouldn't be awaiting the go ahead from anyone, because both issuing agencies and gun rights advocates shouldn't be making your decisions about whether or not you are armed in public with a loaded handgun. That is your responsibility and your choice to make.
While I certainly agree with you in principle, for many simply pissing away the application fee (which vary's from county to county) may be a non-starter. While it's obviously not for you or I, it's a barrier that some can't afford simply to be told the answer they already know they are going to get.
__________________

"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Wether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

Last edited by baggss; 12-21-2015 at 11:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:51 AM
Urban Achiever Urban Achiever is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Everyone should apply regardless of whether they will get their CCWor not. You should be telling everyone you know to apply to get theirs also regardless if they plan to ever carry or not. The momentum for CCW is starting to roll in our favor and we need to give it a push.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-21-2015, 12:01 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Hot part of Ventura County
Posts: 931
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Achiever View Post
Everyone should apply regardless of whether they will get their CCWor not. You should be telling everyone you know to apply to get theirs also regardless if they plan to ever carry or not. The momentum for CCW is starting to roll in our favor and we need to give it a push.
Again, I agree in principle but pissing away the money for a fee only to get a foregone answer is not practical for many individuals. Don't assume everyone who may want to carry has the same fiscal means as you do.
__________________

"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Wether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-21-2015, 12:01 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,901
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
uhh don't you have to the sheriff of the county you live in that is usually the issuing agency not chief of police?
City police Dept's can issue as well if they choose to. But most cede that authority to the Sheriff of there county.
__________________
"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
  #15  
Old 12-21-2015, 12:58 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
It's made by the folks over at CalCCW Forums. Feel free to go suggest the change you'd like, but don't hold your breath, and don't expect to be a member for very long.



They update it fairly regularly, on average every 3 to 4 months, when evidence from members or from the local SD itself, indicates the status has changes. As far as denying, you are correct. As long as the state maintains a policy of "May Issue" and allows discretion other than the ability to pass a background investigation as an option to each individual SD or CoP, nothing will change. Anyone who thinks the body of foolish Individuals that is out legislature will change anything for the better can PM me about some Ocean front property I have for sale in NV. Even if we did convince all of the SDs that they should move to Shall Issue, the state would then simply change the rules and take the power away from them and put it into the hands of the CA DOJ. The NO ONE would get a CCW in the state, period.



.
How do you know if more counties became shall issue the state would stop all permits from being issued, Seems to me if that was what the state wanted they would do it now,
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-21-2015, 3:08 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
It's made by the folks over at CalCCW Forums. Feel free to go suggest the change you'd like, but don't hold your breath, and don't expect to be a member for very long.
No worries. Ive been banned there twice; both for correcting omissions or misstatements about the law regarding carry. Any gun owner with a brain is prohibited there - such are too disruptive to the status quo and threaten the continuity of the 'I-got-mine' and the 'I'll-teach-you-the-secret-handshake' brethren.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
Even if we did convince all of the SDs that they should move to Shall Issue, the state would then simply change the rules and take the power away from them and put it into the hands of the CA DOJ. The NO ONE would get a CCW in the state, period.
Claptrap. If the California legislature thought it could end the carry licensing scheme by putting the discretion solely upon the DOJ, they would have done it already. Court precedents have stymied that approach. Besides, the gun prohibitionists would rather have us fight with 58 sheriffs and 400+ chiefs of police rather than one defendant and defeat them in a single court case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
I spoke with my CoP and he told me that while the state, the county and the City by-laws allow him to issue, he defers to the SD. Why? Because the process costs money and he doesn't have much of it. He's trying to pay his officers better salary's to keep them from jumping to better paying jobs in the county, and while he may be sympathetic to individuals who would desire a CCW it's just not in the fiscal cards for such a small department. Fortunately my Sherriff is Virtual Shall issue.
What you allege of the chiefs fiscal concerns are a lie. Applicants pay a fee to apply. If it costs his department too much to process an application to be practicable, he is either not charging enough, or he is overpaying for the labor to process an application. In the end, processing applications and issuing licenses would have zero fiscal impact on their department whatever the size as applicant pays all the costs. If the chief is out to fund his department with license fees,... well, that shows you what kind of character he is.

'Virtual shall issue' is exactly the same as saying 'may issue light' and like cigarettes that boast a filter, it has that 'but' hanging out littering the second amendment with a litany of conditions that would result in a revocation. If they can take it back because they changed their mind, it is worth less than if you never paid for a carry license to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
While I certainly agree with you in principle, for many simply pissing away the application fee (which vary's from county to county) may be a non-starter. While it's obviously not for you or I, it's a barrier that some can't afford simply to be told the answer they already know they are going to get.
It does vary some county to county. According to statute, local fees may not exceed $100.00 and may be adjusted at no greater rate than cost of living. Statute also limits the amount that the IA may collect at the time the application is submitted to no more than 20%. Between the local fee and the LiveScan an applicant shouldn't be into it more than $108.00. That investment on getting a 'no' letter may be helpful down the road if you happen to incur some legal trouble.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-21-2015, 5:27 PM
Sleighter's Avatar
Sleighter Sleighter is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Riverside County - where the rednecks and hillbillies meet the suburbs
Posts: 3,491
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Citadel, it's obvious you've got an axe to grind (which we need an emoji for) but you're not helping the process with your comments. Demanding to change the map from a useful infographic to something all red just to make a redundant statement is a waste. As it stands, the map currently has some validity in demonstrating what your odds are of getting your ccw.

Also, your not so subtle insinuation that people should apply, get denied and then carry anyway and that the "no letter" may legally help them down the road is ridiculous and against board rules. There is ZERO precedent that getting denied for a ccw would trigger some sort of legal defense for carrying illegally. If anything it will open the door for the prosecution to argue that you weren't considered fit to carry and went ahead and did it anyway, proving that the Sheriff was right in his determination.
__________________
If you are wondering if you can get a LTC in Riverside County: THE ANSWER IS YES!

Join the discussion at:http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=352777
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-21-2015, 6:16 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Hot part of Ventura County
Posts: 931
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Claptrap. If the California legislature thought it could end the carry licensing scheme by putting the discretion solely upon the DOJ, they would have done it already. Court precedents have stymied that approach. Besides, the gun prohibitionists would rather have us fight with 58 sheriffs and 400+ chiefs of police rather than one defendant and defeat them in a single court case.
Stop projecting. I think you underestimate the attention span of our legislature. It's shorter than the average goldfish until the shiney object is dangled in front of there faces. If we make a stink, they'll notice and suddenly pay attention. So far CCW has yet to become a serious issue on the CA political landscape. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't. Lets raise a stink and see if we can get them to do something else stupid. Yeah. Bright idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
What you allege of the chiefs fiscal concerns are a lie. Applicants pay a fee to apply. If it costs his department too much to process an application to be practicable, he is either not charging enough, or he is overpaying for the labor to process an application. In the end, processing applications and issuing licenses would have zero fiscal impact on their department whatever the size as applicant pays all the costs. If the chief is out to fund his department with license fees,... well, that shows you what kind of character he is.
Being that I actually know my chief and have been able to judge his character, based on his service to my comunity, I rank his higher than yours at this point. His honesty and integrity have been very apparent in his tenure as CoP, and while you may choose to doubt his motives, or his honesty, I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
It does vary some county to county. According to statute, local fees may not exceed $100.00 and may be adjusted at no greater rate than cost of living. Statute also limits the amount that the IA may collect at the time the application is submitted to no more than 20%. Between the local fee and the LiveScan an applicant shouldn't be into it more than $108.00. That investment on getting a 'no' letter may be helpful down the road if you happen to incur some legal trouble.
Since Ventura County charges $125 for the initial registration fee, I'd say the Cost of living and the 20% are being charged. Again, easy for me to pay, but not everyone has the same fiscal means as I do and this is a virtual barrier to other who may like to and may be perfectly qualified from being able to. This is also true when coupled with the somewhat prohibitive costs for the entire process. Mine was somewhere around $500, not including the cost of ammo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleighter View Post
Citadel, it's obvious you've got an axe to grind (which we need an emoji for) but you're not helping the process with your comments.
Quoted for truth.

Interesting since he lives in a "May issue Lite" county. Sounds like someone who lives in a red county or maybe was denied for reasons he can't explain. Or maybe he just wants to grind that axe and screw the pooch for all of us.
__________________

"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Wether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

Last edited by baggss; 12-22-2015 at 7:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-21-2015, 6:21 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,096
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleighter View Post
Also, your not so subtle insinuation that people should apply, get denied and then carry anyway and that the "no letter" may legally help them down the road is ridiculous and against board rules.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-21-2015, 6:22 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Hot part of Ventura County
Posts: 931
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Nah.
__________________

"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Wether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-21-2015, 6:41 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
CGSSA Associate
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

To the OP. I routinely can't even get people to go shooting, join NRA, write a freakin' letter to xyz!

I typically don't bs people who ask. Not to deter but because it's the honest truth. "Can I get my permit in LA?" "Not very likely."

But you're saying I should say "Not very likely but you should do it anyway for the cause."?


I like citadels stilo. Screw 'em all. They stand in the way of our God given right to self defense and we're supposed to thank them and ask for more please? Nah.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-21-2015, 6:42 PM
Sleighter's Avatar
Sleighter Sleighter is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Riverside County - where the rednecks and hillbillies meet the suburbs
Posts: 3,491
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post

Lol. That was my point exactly!
__________________
If you are wondering if you can get a LTC in Riverside County: THE ANSWER IS YES!

Join the discussion at:http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=352777
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-22-2015, 6:11 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: O.C. CA. now Occupied Territory.
Posts: 16,469
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
City police Dept's can issue as well if they choose to. But most cede that authority to the Sheriff of there county.
more often the SD issues more than the PD of the city a person lives in. that is all I have ever known is the SD is the issuing agency for many.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boberama View Post
Ok. You should know how to play. I say I see something that begins with a letter.
You find out what it is.
I spy with my little eye something that begins with a "C".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInSoCal View Post
Chlamydia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyXbones View Post
The silhouette of an AR-15 is as appealing to the general public as a dildo.
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-22-2015, 6:20 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,125
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Might I add, if you live in a county that issues to contact your Sheriff and thank them for their policy. Positive encouragement for those who are doing the right thing.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

SSRI Antidepressants, prescribed to every shooter of a major school shooting incident. "Side effects may include violent behavior".
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-23-2015, 11:32 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Politely "Demanding" is an oxymoron.
No, it is not.

It's the difference between saying "I demand that you start accepting a desire to be able to defend yourself as sufficient Good Cause, or else I will actively fight against your reelection, and get my family, friends and everybody else I know to do so as well" and saying, "You are a disgrace to that uniform, have broken your oath to uphold the Constitution, and ought to be tried for treason and shot. Molon Labe, MF'er!"
__________________
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
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-23-2015, 11:55 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
I think you misunderstand.First, the map. The reality is, California is may issue. No matter how you attenuate the wording, every sheriff will use some level of discretion, and even in those places where many licenses are issued, they can, have, and will adopt policies that would deny someone their right to carry. That makes the CalCCW map invalid, because it can be outdated by the decision of a single government official to either individually or collectively deny applications for reasons other than prohibited status.
That's why even the "dark green" areas are called "Virtual Shall Issue" (per my suggestion), not "Shall Issue" (as they used to be). (FWIW months ago I also recommended a change to "Virtual No Issue", but at this point the map is being updated only once or twice per year so that's still pending.)

The map is not invalid. It does not claim CA or any of its counties are "Shall Issue." It's purpose is to show the current difficulty/ease for which the average, law-abiding gun owner has in passing their sheriff's GC standard, not even GMC (and, yes, I've already asked the map maker to state that as well). It is to give potential applicants an idea of how high a bar they are facing in applying in any particular county. It is an encouragement for those in light or dark green counties, and a wake-up call for those in yellow, light red or dark red counties. That is its purpose and I believe it fulfills that purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
On your suggestion that people 'politely' do anything; some of these people you are suggesting we politely demand are going to politely say 'no'. A flood of inquiries or applications isn't going to change their mind.
I should have mentioned in the OP that we should advise them to call the general, non-emergency number for both their police department and sheriff's office, that way more people in the department realize that they're getting flooded with requests (after the next terrorist attack), whereas if they call the direct CCW # only the antis who take care of CCWs will ever know how many people are calling in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Whosoever wants to carry a gun should go apply whether or not their issuing agency is reputed to issue. If it is a 'no' let them put it in writing.
In your opinion. Naturally, my OP had my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Applicants shouldn't be awaiting the go ahead from anyone, because both issuing agencies and gun rights advocates shouldn't be making your decisions about whether or not you are armed in public with a loaded handgun. That is your responsibility and your choice to make. It is not a political wedge that has any power in California.
Again, something you obviously want to get off of your chest, but isn't the topic at hand, which is direct towards how we CGNers should advise those who come here asking for advice. No one said they should wait for us. Obviously anyone can do what they want.
__________________
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
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-24-2015, 12:05 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
They update it fairly regularly, on average every 3 to 4 months, when evidence from members or from the local SD itself, indicates the status has changes. As far as denying, you are correct. As long as the state maintains a policy of "May Issue" and allows discretion other than the ability to pass a background investigation as an option to each individual SD or CoP, nothing will change.
2 brief corrections: (1) the map is now being updated only once or twice per year. It was getting updated a few times earlier this year as I informed the map maker of changes needed to be made (of the old 2010 map), to make it current. Of course, if something dramatic happens (e.g., win Peruta or a major anti county switches green or vice versa), it may get updated sooner.

(2) We're still May Issue and yet much has changed if you compare the old, 2010 map to the current one, or view old CA DOJ CCW issuance stats. I have stats going back to 1987 and between then and 2000 we stayed between ~30,000 and ~40,000 CCWs. We've roughly doubled the # of CCWs now, to >70,000, and that was before the bulk of Ventura, OC, Merced, and San Joaquin applicants applied this year. I expect another spike increase due to the Paris & San Bernardino attacks (those apps mostly getting approved in 2016). So, come Jan 2017, I think we may break, for the first time I know of, 100,000 issued CCWs! While great news, it would be MUCH higher if we win Peruta. But a win is a win, and we're fighting at the county level at this point. Either way, saying "nothing will change" without de jure Shall Issue is clearly false.
__________________
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
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 12-24-2015 at 12:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-24-2015, 12:17 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by readysetgo View Post
To the OP. I routinely can't even get people to go shooting, join NRA, write a freakin' letter to xyz!

I typically don't bs people who ask. Not to deter but because it's the honest truth. "Can I get my permit in LA?" "Not very likely."

But you're saying I should say "Not very likely but you should do it anyway for the cause."?
I NEVER said apply, CitaDeL did. I said, essentially, call and complain. What's a call, 10 cents? How much time? Less than 5 minutes? If they can't afford both of those, they probably can't afford everything else involved w/applying, even if they would get issued.
__________________
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
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-24-2015, 12:21 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,002
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Might I add, if you live in a county that issues to contact your Sheriff and thank them for their policy. Positive encouragement for those who are doing the right thing.
QFT. It is too easy to think "It's our right!" and forget that, in this state, they are swimming against the stream. We need to express our appreciation for the sticking to their guns.
__________________
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
170+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-24-2015, 12:37 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Hot part of Ventura County
Posts: 931
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Either way, saying "nothing will change" without de jure Shall Issue is clearly false.
Point taken.

However, even if we win Peruta the state is likely to do nothing and the Sheriffs who choose to do so will simply use the "good morals" clause to obfuscate as long as they can. Another lawsuit is, IIRC, already workings it's way through in regards to that bit of chicanery, but until the the legislature changes the wording of the law, we will still be "may issue" even though we could effectively be "shall issue". Once we get to that point the legislature will simply find a way to change the rules again, they're not going to go for shall issue. Ever.
__________________

"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Wether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-24-2015, 1:36 AM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
CGSSA Associate
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I NEVER said apply, CitaDeL did. I said, essentially, call and complain. What's a call, 10 cents? How much time? Less than 5 minutes? If they can't afford both of those, they probably can't afford everything else involved w/applying, even if they would get issued.
OK, but you did say
Quote:
not to bother contacting their PDs and SOs with requests for CCWs since they're highly unlikely to get approved, to instead wait
Which I took as I explained. I don't know many people who contact their issuing agency about ccw if they're not trying to get in.

Not trying to be a naysayer, there's nothing wrong with your concept. Practically speaking though...it just seems a non-starter w/ very little impact (because I foresee very little numbers following through, not because it wouldn't be effective).

But OK, I'm on board.

"Contact your sheriffs and ask them to issue more CCW's"
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 3:26 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.