CRPA letter to Alameda sheriff over bad policy on CCW

[hermosabeach]

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...-Alameda-2.pdf

[9Cal_OC]

One can hope the new sheriff complies.

[SilveradoColt21]

Fingers crossed for January 19th then that is a day over 14 days , let's see what happens.

[Drivedabizness]

What other counties got that letter? My County (Nevada) has many of the same flaws.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

What other counties got that letter? My County (Nevada) has many of the same flaws.

I am not sure what other counties got that letter but Alameda county is a main focus for many organizations like CRPA because they are the ones that have basically done nothing since the Bruen Decision.

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

What other counties got that letter? My County (Nevada) has many of the same flaws.

What flaws?

They issue and don’t require all the stuff that Alameda County requires.

If the sheriff issued in Alameda like they do in Nevada County, there would be no letter. Heck, even the sheriff would get a pat on the back from their constituents. Most would say that’d be a significant improvement over the predecessor.

[G-forceJunkie]

That letter is already in the trash can.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

What flaws?

They issue and don’t require all the stuff that Alameda County requires.

If the sheriff issued in Alameda like they do in Nevada County, there would be no letter. Heck, even the sheriff would get a pat on the back from their constituents. Most would say that’d be a significant improvement over the predecessor.

Have YOU applied in Nevada County?? How in the heck would you know? Or are you assuming??

You can apply online - but they ask a bunch of "GMC" type questions that are completely inappropriate/irrelevant. Which means they are attempting to exercise discretion - which isn't allowed.

Costs are exorbitant - which isn't allowed. IA's don't get to set up a Rube Goldberg process (ala CA DOJ on background checks & DROS) to try and justify long waits and expense. The tools exist to quickly and inexpensively determine whether an applicant is law abiding.

[Paladin]

One week down, one to go!

[NateTheNewbie]

this letter is my happy place.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Paladin

One week down, one to go!

Just slowly waiting, 2023 should be a better year for all of us in that aspect.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

One week down, one to go!

From the letter (emphasis added):

A draft of our complaint is attached as Exhibit B. Please respond within 14 days of your receipt of this letter with confirmation that the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department will end its unconstitutional and illegal policies and practices in a timely manner. To the extent the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department under your leadership intends to do just that, CRPA is happy to offer its guidance and assistance on any questions the Sheriff’s Department may have. If we do not receive any response, or if your response indicates that you intend to continue Sheriff Ahern’s policies and practices, then we will file the complaint forthwith.

Assuming CRPA isn’t satisfied with their response (if any), roughly when is “forthwith”: the next workday? The next week? The next month? year???

[Drivedabizness]

If I say "two weeks" - will I go directly to Hell?

[NateTheNewbie]

FYI: https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/stat...72637696438273

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by NateTheNewbie

FYI: https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/stat...72637696438273

Thank you.

I especially liked “If Alameda does behave, I intend to turn my attention to other footdraggers like SF, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara.”

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Thank you.

I especially liked “If Alameda does behave, I intend to turn my attention to other footdraggers like SF, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara.”

^^^ MAKES SENSE ^^^

Of the 58 counties in CrapOfornica. About a dozen [rough count], still have overly oppressive CCW requirements. Suing all of them simultaneously. Would be very cost/time prohibitive.

Singling out JUST ONE, and holding their feet to the fire. Sets a precedent that the others must follow. Without further litigation. Take down one, WIN THEM ALL.

Just like USSC finally did nationally with Bruen.

[Drivedabizness]

Given the lack of consequences, it is most likely the foot draggers, and those excessively long cycle Counties will keep on keeping on.

[Drivedabizness]

OK - it's been a week since my last post and we are now well past 2 weeks from Chuck's demand letter.

Can someone PLEASE confirm:

We really mean it but we've just been a little lax in enforcing our 2 week demand, or

We're only holding off because the Defendants are falling all over themselves to comply but just need a little more time, or

Your legal beagles out there - please explain how it's a good strategy to let the offender continue to offend.

[Sputnik]

Do we actually expect anything beyond lip service from Alameda County?
They'll say 'We're fixing it', make bare minimum changes, raise the associated costs, not budge on stuff like psych exams (at applicant's expense) and call it good.
Or maybe I'm just a Debbie Downer? My expectations are not high.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Do we actually expect anything beyond lip service from Alameda County?
They'll say 'We're fixing it', make bare minimum changes, raise the associated costs, not budge on stuff like psych exams (at applicant's expense) and call it good.
Or maybe I'm just a Debbie Downer? My expectations are not high.

The way that Alameda county is going is that timelines are put by challenging figures pr organizations such as CRPA and then when push comes to shove nothing is really done once that timeline elapses , I am going well into my 6th month and nothing since they took my payment, such a frustrating process and I am hopeful that I can get my permit before the year mark.

[NateTheNewbie]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

OK - it's been a week since my last post and we are now well past 2 weeks from Chuck's demand letter.

Can someone PLEASE confirm:

We really mean it but we've just been a little lax in enforcing our 2 week demand, or

We're only holding off because the Defendants are falling all over themselves to comply but just need a little more time, or

Your legal beagles out there - please explain how it's a good strategy to let the offender continue to offend.

Obviously I'm not CRPA (or a legal beagle).. but I took Kostas' tweet at face value when he said he would give the Sheriff additional time to respond prior to filing (but not a month).

The hard fact is that litigation is expensive, can take a long time to resolve, and – once started – leaves little further leverage for the department to change its policies and procedures. As much as I hate it, it's reasonable to allow the new Sheriff a bit of time to change her policy before making hard commitments.

That said, I've been disappointed that nothing has seems to have improved in the 26 days since the Sheriff has been sworn in. Hell, Ahern's message is still up on the CCW request page! https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org...es/ccw-request

Meanwhile, from what I can tell, they still have not gotten to the interview stage for JULY applicants. Something has to give...

[Paladin]

[SilveradoColt21]

Feb 10th, today is the day of the deadline .

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

Feb 10th, today is the day of the deadline .

I say give it

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

I say give it

seems like that's been the story, another 2 weeks and then when 2 weeks are up "we'll give them another 2 weeks" .

[Raiderh20boy]

Just curious, is this only directed to counties or are individual cities so included?

[Vinnie Boombatz]

For all of you who are complaining, have you contacted Michel & Assoc. to be a plaintiff for the potential lawsuit against the county?

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by Vinnie Boombatz

For all of you who are complaining, have you contacted Michel & Assoc. to be a plaintiff for the potential lawsuit against the county?

[Vinnie Boombatz]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

Really helpful contribution. Why are you even posting in this thread? You don’t live in Alameda County.

[Paladin]

My guess is the continued slow walking of CCW apps by SFBA anti sheriffs is because they want to issue as few as possible before SB2 becomes law and takes effect next January.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB2

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Paladin

My guess is the continued slow walking of CCW apps by SFBA anti sheriffs is because they want to issue as few as possible before SB2 becomes law and takes effect next January.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...d=202320240SB2

Well hopefully mine gets issued by then, by my prediction I should have mine by the end of this year hopefully .

[pacrat]

IF, all CG Members were also CRPA MEMBERS. You would know a lot more about what is actually happening.


According to latest CRPA Email. In regards to recent letter from New Sheriff.

We've stated many times that the Bruen decision, while momentous, was the "end of the beginning". Since its announcement, the work to restore our rights and roll back unconstitutional laws has continued unabated.

At times, progress is slow. Particularly when staunchly anti-2A politicians and bureaucrats refuse to accept this very clear new reality.

Alameda County, as an example, has been slow to adapt it's CCW application process to comply with the direction offered by Bruen. Persistent effort on the part of the CRPA legal team, however, has continued to produce results, exemplified by a recent letter from the sheriff describing a litany of specific requirements now being removed from their CCW issuance process.

Our mission to extend the Bruen CCW procedures to every one of California's 58 counties will continue until complete. Victories like this one in Alameda are an important reminder of how significant Bruen is, even as some fervently fight against it.

link to letter;

https://na01.safelinks.protection.ou...%3D&reserved=0

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by pacrat

IF, all CG Members were also CRPA MEMBERS. You would know a lot more about what is actually happening.


According to latest CRPA Email. In regards to recent letter from New Sheriff.



link to letter;

https://na01.safelinks.protection.ou...%3D&reserved=0

Which membership do you recommend? The Life one or just the annual one?

[Hamsterman]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

Which membership do you recommend? The Life one or just the annual one?

Whichever one you want. If you want to eventually join the Board of Directors, then you should get the lifetime membership since that is a requirement

There is also the CRPA Foundation which is the tax-deductible entity. They handle education and pay the lawyers.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Hamsterman

Whichever one you want. If you want to eventually join the Board of Directors, then you should get the lifetime membership since that is a requirement

There is also the CRPA Foundation which is the tax-deductible entity. They handle education and pay the lawyers.

Ok thank you for that information.

[pacrat]

From Mr Kostas' tweet;

Jan 19
way too long. While I understand resources are limited, that's the government's problem. They are the ones who insist on a lengthy permit process, so it's their job to make sure the time to get through it complies with both Bruen and California law's 90 day time limit.

I concur. If our SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION law enforcers would do so. Rather than allowing some within their ranks to become ANTI CIVIL RIGHTS antagonists against citizens. They would have plenty of money to overpay sworn officer to do clerical work.

How many cops will $8.25 MILLION buy.

I ask because that's what ALAMEDA CNTY SHERIFFS were ordered to pay last week, to a lady and her two daughters. For false arrest and civil rights violations.

https://youtu.be/sfRd9DTyeE0

[Calif Mini]

This thread started as a policy question on the CCW requirements imposed by the ACSO.

I have heard that they are requiring re-qualification every year and not only upon renewal.

Has anyone information on this and where I can find it?

Sounds like it may be time for another letter ??

I have asked for a total list of requirements on the CCW process and have not been successful in that any questions were not answered or replied to.

TIA
Ed

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Calif Mini

This thread started as a policy question on the CCW requirements imposed by the ACSO.

I have heard that they are requiring re-qualification every year and not only upon renewal.

Has anyone information on this and where I can find it?

Sounds like it may be time for another letter ??

I have asked for a total list of requirements on the CCW process and have not been successful in that any questions were answered or replied to.

TIA
Ed

I can't say I heard of this? but yes if that is what they are planning then a letter by CRPA may be what they need to stop inputting all these ridiculous rules and requirements.

[Noobie678]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

I can't say I heard of this? but yes if that is what they are planning then a letter by CRPA may be what they need to stop inputting all these ridiculous rules and requirements.

I can?t confirm this from ASCO directly but I did hear the same thing from my class instructor Larry Hamby of security six that annual qualification is required.

I?m fine with it. It was fun being able to shoot at their range from the holster and rapid fire. I don?t get to do that at my regular range. The course of fire is honestly so easy that if you can?t pass it you really shouldn?t be carrying anyway. If it continues at their range for just $50 then I?m fine with it but I am hearing that they are going third party and God knows how that?s going to work and what a private third party vendor will charge for it.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Calif Mini

This thread started as a policy question on the CCW requirements imposed by the ACSO.

I have heard that they are requiring re-qualification every year and not only upon renewal.

Has anyone information on this and where I can find it?

Sounds like it may be time for another letter ??

I have asked for a total list of requirements on the CCW process and have not been successful in that any questions were not answered or replied to.

TIA
Ed

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.

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...eda-Letter.pdf

The Alameda County Sheriff?s Office (?ACSO?) informed me of the following changes to the CCW
process. On July 5, 2022, Sheriff Ahern announced that he had eliminated the ?good cause?
requirement from the application process and posted that decision on the Sheriff?s website. The
ACSO has since abandoned the use of the supplemental questionnaire and is now solely using
the state Department of Justice (?DOJ?) application, which is mandated by state law.
Consequently, the ACSO is no longer:

? requiring applicants to furnish photographs of their firearm storage;
? inquiring about home security and cameras; asking for the number and storage location
of the applicant?s firearms;
? asking for information about the people who live in the applicant?s home and the layout of
that home;
? requiring proof of income;
? asking where an applicant intends to carry; or
? limiting CCW permits to a single firearm provided the applicant qualifies for each firearm

Whether the NEW SHERIFF will stay this course or not remains to be seen. I'm in SoCal and don't keep current on bay area politics.

When did Sheriff Sanchez take office?