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 > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-17-2013, 4:17 PM
anbu_yoshi's Avatar
anbu_yoshi anbu_yoshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,346
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default Sac Sheriff CCW App - "Hold Harmless" Section

Question on the "Hold Harmless".

CGF states in their cgf_app_guide_2012, LTC Common Misconceptions and Unlawful Policies, Item #10 (page 10):


Quote:
LTC Common Misconceptions and Unlawful Policies

10. A licensing authority may require the applicant to sign a "hold harmless" agreement.

No. Such an additional requirement violates 26175(g): "An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional application or form for a license, or to provide any information other than that necessary to complete the standard application form []."

What do we do in this situation? There's a "hold harmless" portion in both old and new apps.

I understand the point of hold harmless and I do agree that no one should penalize the SO for issuing a CCW when all else is correct, but at the same time it is a violation of what is stated.

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-17-2013, 8:13 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,457
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

As it turns out, Government Code make it very difficult to hold an agency or an agency employee liable in any way for issuing or failing to issue a license.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Ca...uing_Authority

Now, what to do about an illegal requirement?

I suspect the result of failing to sign such a paper would be failure to receive an LTC.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

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.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-17-2013, 8:16 PM
anbu_yoshi's Avatar
anbu_yoshi anbu_yoshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,346
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

I suspected as much. Similar to the 50 experiments in democracy, we have multiple experiments in counties and cities.

Gotta conform to the local rules to play. Their house, their rules.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-18-2013, 5:05 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_yoshi View Post
Question on the "Hold Harmless".

CGF states in their cgf_app_guide_2012, LTC Common Misconceptions and Unlawful Policies, Item #10 (page 10):

LTC Common Misconceptions and Unlawful Policies

10. A licensing authority may require the applicant to sign a "hold harmless" agreement.

No. Such an additional requirement violates 26175(g): "An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional application or form for a license, or to provide any information other than that necessary to complete the standard application form []."

What do we do in this situation? There's a "hold harmless" portion in both old and new apps.

I understand the point of hold harmless and I do agree that no one should penalize the SO for issuing a CCW when all else is correct, but at the same time it is a violation of what is stated.
All Sheriff offices and other IAs use the same Standard Application (BOF 4012). That's how it got it's name.
http://www.lakesheriff.com/Assets/Sh...ocs/CCWapp.pdf
http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments...s/ccwappl.ashx
http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F...tion112012.pdf
http://www.sacsheriff.com/organizati...cw-doj-app.pdf
You get the idea.

The hold harmless portion of the Standard Application is a part of the application.

26175(g) precludes IAs from requiring any information, "other than that necessary to complete the Standard Application."

There is no illegality, conflict or additional requirement.

Read the whole of Penal Code 26175 http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26175.html

Cheers.

JR

Last edited by Dvrjon; 07-18-2013 at 5:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-18-2013, 5:11 PM
anbu_yoshi's Avatar
anbu_yoshi anbu_yoshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,346
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Hmmm I see. My interpretation of the law was flawed it seems.

It appears that because this is the "Standard" app utilized by all IA's in CA who choose to issue, it is "what is neccessary" because it is the standard across the board.

Makes sense. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-18-2013, 5:20 PM
naeco81's Avatar
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,073
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I never thought I'd see the day that someone else's answer would best Librarian's.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-18-2013, 6:32 PM
anbu_yoshi's Avatar
anbu_yoshi anbu_yoshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,346
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by naeco81 View Post
I never thought I'd see the day that someone else's answer would best Librarian's.
The world is ending after all... Either that or he's getting



JK. His answer is still valid and holds true. It just goes a different route.

Last edited by anbu_yoshi; 07-18-2013 at 6:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-18-2013, 6:44 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by naeco81 View Post
I never thought I'd see the day that someone else's answer would best Librarian's.
Even a blind squirrel can occasionally find a nut.

Librarian's answer actually addresses the more complex issue of agencies electing to not follow statute, and making their own rules (one-year residency requirement, written acknowledgements of license "restrictions" not recorded on the license, requiring registration of guns on CCW--additional form and $19).

That left me the easy answer, which is: Read the law.

JR
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 3:24 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.