CRPA letter to Alameda sheriff over bad policy on CCW

[Calif Mini]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Please share "WHERE YOU HEARD THIS". Because to be honest, many supposed sources are full of crap. AKA FUD.

And no such mention of an "ANNUAL REQUAL" was included in the last correspondence from the Sheriffs office available here. From a prior post

I was told this by Judea Mulder on March 4th at about 8:45 in the morning. Saturday.

I was to pick up an updated qual with needed info when the lead instructor called her at home and after he talked some, gave me his phone and that is that is when she mentioned qualifying every year whereas I asked "you mean every other year upon renewing" and she emphatically stated "no, every year".

[NateTheNewbie]

Originally Posted by Calif Mini

I was told this by Judea Mulder on March 4th at about 8:45 in the morning. Saturday.

I was to pick up an updated qual with needed info when the lead instructor called her at home and after he talked some, gave me his phone and that is that is when she mentioned qualifying every year whereas I asked "you mean every other year upon renewing" and she emphatically stated "no, every year".

This was also confirmed via a post on Reddit.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by NateTheNewbie

This was also confirmed via a post on Reddit.

Please post a link to the reddit post.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Calif Mini

I was told this by Judea Mulder on March 4th at about 8:45 in the morning. Saturday.

I was to pick up an updated qual with needed info when the lead instructor called her at home and after he talked some, gave me his phone and that is that is when she mentioned qualifying every year whereas I asked "you mean every other year upon renewing" and she emphatically stated "no, every year".

They're up to no good again with their attempts at implementing silly policies

[Noobie678]

I don't think suing them over an annual qualification for a nominal cost of $50 is the hill we want to die on. First of all, the qualification is so easy that if you can't pass it then you shouldn't be carrying anyway. I also don't see how this particular requirement is in violation of Bruen. It is OBJECTIVE. What is a clear violation of Bruen is all of the SUBJECTIVE nonsense they required of me, including having to provide photographs of my firearm storage in my own house, being asked who lives in my house, being asked about my home and security systems, and most egregious is that psychological exam and with it the added cost to the application.

[NateTheNewbie]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Please post a link to the reddit post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comm...ameda_ccw_get/

[NateTheNewbie]

Originally Posted by Noobie678

I don't think suing them over an annual qualification for a nominal cost of $50 is the hill we want to die on. First of all, the qualification is so easy that if you can't pass it then you shouldn't be carrying anyway. I also don't see how this particular requirement is in violation of Bruen. It is OBJECTIVE. What is a clear violation of Bruen is all of the SUBJECTIVE nonsense they required of me, including having to provide photographs of my firearm storage in my own house, being asked who lives in my house, being asked about my home and security systems, and most egregious is that psychological exam and with it the added cost to the application.

I tend to agree. As long as shall-issue licensing based on objective criteria has been declared constitutional by SCOTUS, I'm not sure there's much to be done about an annual re-qualification requirement. The extreme delays and non-objective requirements are what are frustrating me.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by NateTheNewbie

This was also confirmed via a post on Reddit.

Originally Posted by pacrat

Please post a link to the reddit post.

Originally Posted by NateTheNewbie

https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comm...ameda_ccw_get/

That Reddit thread was started by "SoundOf1HandClapping-OP"

SoundOf1HandClapping-OP SAID;

License is good for 2 years. I was told I have to do shooting requalifications yearly. As I was leaving I asked how many people had been processed. She didn't have a direct answer, but said I was among the first people of the second batch.

Nothing in the thread from an ACTUAL ACSO source.

[NateTheNewbie]

Originally Posted by pacrat

That Reddit thread was started by "SoundOf1HandClapping-OP"

SoundOf1HandClapping-OP SAID;

Nothing in the thread from an ACTUAL ACSO source.

@Pacrat I don't think that anyone on this thread is suggesting that ACSO has officially communicated a change of policy in writing. Rather, two independent sources who spoke directly with employees of ACSO, and one source who spoke with an ACSO-approved instructor have shared this.

Yeah, it could be FUD. No one knows. But it seems within the realm of possibility.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by NateTheNewbie

I tend to agree. As long as shall-issue licensing based on objective criteria has been declared constitutional by SCOTUS, I'm not sure there's much to be done about an annual re-qualification requirement. The extreme delays and non-objective requirements are what are frustrating me.

Name another right one must "qualify" to exercise. Or any Founding era analogy.

Name any other right where the regulatory process is on an annual basis.

it's not just $50. It's $50, range fees, ammo, gas and valuable time to re-qual, gather & submit docs, etc. There is no guarantee any of this will be handled timely and no nexus between annual re-qual and any other tangible public benefit. The other side isn't allowed to argue interest balancing and we shouldn't give an inch.

We do not tolerate these kinds of infringements on any other right. We need to be consistent in pushing back on the 2A's second class status or it will continue to be death by 1000 cuts.

[NateTheNewbie]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Name another right one must "qualify" to exercise. Or any Founding era analogy.

Name any other right where the regulatory process is on an annual basis.

it's not just $50. It's $50, range fees, ammo, gas and valuable time to re-qual, gather & submit docs, etc. There is no guarantee any of this will be handled timely and no nexus between annual re-qual and any other tangible public benefit. The other side isn't allowed to argue interest balancing and we shouldn't give an inch.

We do not tolerate these kinds of infringements on any other right. We need to be consistent in pushing back on the 2A's second class status or it will continue to be death by 1000 cuts.

I agree with you but unless you're willing to fund a lawsuit that almost certainly will never see a federal judge, much less SCOTUS, then I'm not sure what legal options are on the table.

I suppose one could try to organize mass civil disobedience. But my sense is that such a movement wouldn't end well, if it could even get started.

[Noobie678]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Name another right one must "qualify" to exercise. Or any Founding era analogy.

Name any other right where the regulatory process is on an annual basis.

it's not just $50. It's $50, range fees, ammo, gas and valuable time to re-qual, gather & submit docs, etc. There is no guarantee any of this will be handled timely and no nexus between annual re-qual and any other tangible public benefit. The other side isn't allowed to argue interest balancing and we shouldn't give an inch.

We do not tolerate these kinds of infringements on any other right. We need to be consistent in pushing back on the 2A's second class status or it will continue to be death by 1000 cuts.

In a perfect world we would have no infringements but the reality is we had no issue at all and no we are finally getting permits issued. The roberts/kavanaugh concurrence in Bruen made clear the shall issue permitting with objective standards is acceptable. A better use of resources is to challenge them on the clearly unconstitutional subjective requirements and ridiculous long wait times. The range qualification is a minor inconvenience at best.