Alameda

[riddler408]

I am currently getting my ducks in a row. Going to run my own live scan background check, and I already pulled my DMV record. Live scan appointment is for today, take 7 days for the results to get back to me. I want to be as prepared as I would if the IRS was auditing me...

I will probably wait until we know for sure that there isn't/is going to be an appeal for en blanc by the judges themselves. Then I will submit my application.

[IPSICK]

Originally Posted by Paladin

That's because they changed the recording.

Originally, it talked about the Peruta decision not having "passed" -- whatever that means in context of a federal appellate court decision. Those (I'll control myself) people thought a court decision had to "pass" some sort of separate vote to take effect.... (more self-control exercised!)

It also said they'd only obey what SCOTUS says (as per my post #261 above).... Were they even awake in high school Civics class? (*shakes head*)

These are the people who get to carry guns in public and have the audacity to tell us we can't be trusted to carry guns in public....

In reality the message was probably spoken by a "Sheriff's Technician" which are quasi-deputies that are more like glorified clerk/meter-maids. They don't carry guns though funny enough they work at the jails too.

I kind of figured the message may have changed at some point.

[riddler408]

So went to get my live scan done today. Want my app to show exactly what they will see.

Today was the busiest day the ladt has had in 2 years. The monday following the decision of SDC to not seek en blanc. Coincidence?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by IPSICK

In reality the message was probably spoken by a "Sheriff's Technician" which are quasi-deputies that are more like glorified clerk/meter-maids. They don't carry guns though funny enough they work at the jails too.

I kind of figured the message may have changed at some point.

Yes, but I doubt they're given a free hand in choosing what to say. My guess is they are told, verbally or in writing, what to say for the recording.

The recording says that "the appeals process has not been exhausted" and so CA is still "May Issue." Hello? NO APPEALS ARE EVEN BEING PURSUED!!! They make it seem like Gore is beating the bushes trying to appeal this thing when in fact Gore dumped this political hot potato last week!

Anyway, it will be interested to hear how the recording changes if no CA9 justices ask for en banc by March 7th, and then again, after the cert. deadline passes....

[IPSICK]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Yes, but I doubt they're given a free hand in choosing what to say. My guess is they are told, verbally or in writing, what to say for the recording.

The recording says that "the appeals process has not been exhausted" and so CA is still "May Issue." Hello? NO APPEALS ARE EVEN BEING PURSUED!!! They make it seem like Gore is beating the bushes trying to appeal this thing when in fact Gore dumped this political hot potato last week!

Anyway, it will be interested to hear how the recording changes if no CA9 justices ask for en banc by March 7th, and then again, after the cert. deadline passes....

Did you notice I posted "spoken" and not made or created?

I've read about the en banc deadline on the March 7 but when might be the cert deadline? And can there be a cert if there is no further appeal? If no en banc and no cert, is it then time to apply?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by IPSICK

I've read about the en banc deadline on the March 7 but when might be the cert deadline? And can there be a cert if there is no further appeal? If no en banc and no cert, is it then time to apply?

The cert. deadline is May 16th.

Practically, it would not make sense for Gore to ask for cert. to get to SCOTUS directly rather than 1st going thru en banc. Why? He knows he'll lose to the Heller 5 who are still on the Court, whereas if he first went thru en banc, that would add a year or two before he'd (or we'd) then take it to SCOTUS, increasing the odds that one of the Heller 5 would have been replaced by an Obama anti.

Judicially, SCOTUS practically expects (but I don't think requires), attempted en banc review prior to asking for cert. IOW, they'd prefer a lower appeals court attempt to fix their own mess before it gets thrown up to them. So, they look down up on parties throwing cases straight up to them -- something a good lawyer would not want.

Last, there is NO RIGHT to cert., no right to having SCOTUS review your case. Plus, I don't recall the numbers, but the odds of SCOTUS even taking your case are at least 1,000 to 1 against. Just look at what happened to the 3 gun cases yesterday, two of which were brought by the NRA:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=890090

I saw news articles from major news sources all over the web (incl WSJ), talking about how SCOTUS hasn't waded into 2nd A law since McDonald. I can't imagine Peruta will be stayed pending a cert. request for an appeal to SCOTUS.

2014 March 07 will be, my guess, the day it becomes effective law. (Haven't looked into the issue re. the exact legally effective date in years (and won't now), but that's what it will be IIRC.) It will then, per the 3-judge panel's order, get applied by the district court to the parties in the Peruta case. That will take time. But that does not mean the 2nd A as interpreted in Peruta could not be used to file lawsuits against other LEAs violating our 2nd A RKBA in the 9th Circuit on March 07.

[IPSICK]

So even if the ruling stands on March 7th and there is no cert petition in the works, Alameda can use the cash cow that is the Alameda County taxpayer and all other relevant taxpayers to fund any legal challenges to its CCW policy? How long would that case take considering the 9th ruling standing?

[Demontweak]

Called Monday morning and left a message stating I had some questions on the DOJ application. Lady called me at almost 7pm and told me to send application in with section 1-5 filled out and signed, leave remaining questions blank. She also said to not send any money at this time.
She asked me why I need a CCW and I told her self-defense, she stated that they are not going to issue for that yet. I didn't want to argue with her but said u will be!
I sent in app today Certified mail.
Anyone else see all the illegal questions and requirement? I cant belive how the sheriffs office is so blatant at not fallowing California law.

[Racer_X]

Originally Posted by Demontweak

Anyone else see all the illegal questions and requirement? I cant belive how the sheriffs office is so blatant at not fallowing California law.

Can you elaborate? I have not seen the form.

[dirtymaxx12]

Originally Posted by Demontweak

Called Monday morning and left a message stating I had some questions on the DOJ application. Lady called me at almost 7pm and told me to send application in with section 1-5 filled out and signed, leave remaining questions blank. She also said to not send any money at this time.
She asked me why I need a CCW and I told her self-defense, she stated that they are not going to issue for that yet. I didn't want to argue with her but said u will be!
I sent in app today Certified mail.
Anyone else see all the illegal questions and requirement? I cant belive how the sheriffs office is so blatant at not fallowing California law.

Did you send in a "letter of justification"

I was told to turn in the following 3 items.

1) CA DOJ App
2) ACSO License App
3) Letter of Justification

I have 1 & 2 done, but not 3. I don't have any reason besides self defense.

If I don't need to include #3, I will mail it off tonight.

[gwgn02]

Originally Posted by Demontweak

Called Monday morning and left a message stating I had some questions on the DOJ application. Lady called me at almost 7pm and told me to send application in with section 1-5 filled out and signed, leave remaining questions blank. She also said to not send any money at this time.
She asked me why I need a CCW and I told her self-defense, she stated that they are not going to issue for that yet. I didn't want to argue with her but said u will be!
I sent in app today Certified mail.
Anyone else see all the illegal questions and requirement? I cant belive how the sheriffs office is so blatant at not fallowing California law.

SO what did you write for your reasoning for good cause? What questions did you leave blank?

[jaed]

How did you fill out the letter of justification?

Dear ALCO,

Self Defence Is my reason

Love
J

[riddler408]

Originally Posted by dirtymaxx12

Did you send in a "letter of justification"

I was told to turn in the following 3 items.

1) CA DOJ App
2) ACSO License App
3) Letter of Justification

I have 1 & 2 done, but not 3. I don't have any reason besides self defense.

If I don't need to include #3, I will mail it off tonight.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1#post13524331

post #19 by librarian.

26175 - applications, especially (g)

(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
described in subdivision (a), except to clarify or interpret
information provided by the applicant on the standard application
form.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26175.html

The acso initial app is not required and is illegal for them to even ask for it prior to reviewing your doj app...

[riddler408]

Originally Posted by Racer_X

Can you elaborate? I have not seen the form.

They require references from alameda county residents that have been in alameda county for minimum of 3 years.... so if you just moved here and dont know anyone you cant complete the ACSO initial application.

I am going to fill it out and bring it with me. but i will also bring a copy of the PC i posted above that says they cant ask for it. at least not until they review my DOJ app and need "to clarify or interpret
information provided by the applicant on the standard application
form." Which they wont need to since it is all covered in the standard app.

[Jonl]

riddler408 how did you go about getting your live scan? Thanks guys for the info. I am paying close attention and keeping others informed for when the time is right. On a side note, what would you guys choose to carry? I have a CZ spo1 which is giant. I am going to start looking for a compact.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by IPSICK

So even if the ruling stands on March 7th and there is no cert petition in the works, Alameda can use the cash cow that is the Alameda County taxpayer and all other relevant taxpayers to fund any legal challenges to its CCW policy? How long would that case take considering the 9th ruling standing?

IIRC, there are various legal procedures depending upon the illegality. Things like writs of mandamus, preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders, and motions for summary judgment. They're "fast" in judicial terms (talking a few months or less).

But once Peruta is settled law (early as March 7th), other politics kicks in: only hard core anti county counsel and Board of Sups are willing to put time, money, and effort into defending a clearly illegal CCW policy because it is ultimately a fight they cannot win. Only a few may even attempt it a time or two for political grandstanding purposes (SF, LA, and maybe a few others, incl Ala). But like I said, if the policy is now CLEARLY illegal, will a county counsel be willing to tarnish his professional rep. (and risk ethics violation) by trying to defend it???

fwiw Orange County is getting flooded w/apps. In the past 2 weeks they've gotten almost as many as they got in the entire year of 2013. Their Board of Sups are supporting the SO hiring temp workers to help process apps while the Board seeks more funding for the SO to deal with the flood of applicants.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/a...concealed.html

[Demontweak]

Read up on the laws that all police and sheriffs have to follow concering CCW applications.
California law says you only have to turn in the DOJ application, most of what ACSO want is illegal. I will follow up in a couple days to see what the say about not getting a good cause letter or the ACSO application.

[riddler408]

Originally Posted by Jonl

riddler408 how did you go about getting your live scan? Thanks guys for the info. I am paying close attention and keeping others informed for when the time is right. On a side note, what would you guys choose to carry? I have a CZ spo1 which is giant. I am going to start looking for a compact.

https://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security <--- info and form here

http://ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/publications/contact.php <------places to get it done

[jaed]

Originally Posted by Demontweak

Called Monday morning and left a message stating I had some questions on the DOJ application. Lady called me at almost 7pm and told me to send application in with section 1-5 filled out and signed, leave remaining questions blank. She also said to not send any money at this time.
She asked me why I need a CCW and I told her self-defense, she stated that they are not going to issue for that yet. I didn't want to argue with her but said u will be!
I sent in app today Certified mail.
Anyone else see all the illegal questions and requirement? I cant belive how the sheriffs office is so blatant at not fallowing California law.

Looking at the DOJ CCW form on the first page it asks for a witness signature and has a section for a Badge Number. Do you know if you have to have an officer as the witness?

[dirtymaxx12]

Originally Posted by jaed

Looking at the DOJ CCW form on the first page it asks for a witness signature and has a section for a Badge Number. Do you know if you have to have an officer as the witness?

That is "pre" section 1. You only need to do Sections 1-5.

[Demontweak]

I may be the only retard that did this.
If sending in just the DOJ application, make sure to send a separate page with your contact info.
I realized today that there is no address or phone info in section 1-5 and the SO stated not to fill out section 6-8.
I will have to call and add by phone tomorrow.

[Paladin]

In case you guys missed it, CA AG Harris petitioned CA9 for en banc review today. Not sure how long it will be until CA9 decides whether she has standing at this late date to intervene in the proceedings and then, if so, how long it will take CA9 to vote whether to go en banc for her or not.

Separately, March 6th is the last day for a CA9 judge to ask for a vote re. en banc.

[dirtymaxx12]

Well they received the following today (mailed it Monday)

1) ACSO App
2) DOJ App

I got a call today letting me know they can't process it since I didn't include a justification letter (good cause statement)

[Racer_X]

Originally Posted by dirtymaxx12

Well they received the following today (mailed it Monday)

1) ACSO App
2) DOJ App

I got a call today letting me know they can't process it since I didn't include a justification letter (good cause statement)

I'm curious why you sent the ACSO app but did not send a good cause letter. The ACOS app seems to be an illegal requirement, but I have to assume the good cause letter isn't based on all the court cases.

[dirtymaxx12]

Originally Posted by Racer_X

I'm curious why you sent the ACSO app but did not send a good cause letter. The ACOS app seems to be an illegal requirement, but I have to assume the good cause letter isn't based on all the court cases.

Did the ACSO app because I didn't feel a reason why I didn't need to. Sure it may be "illegal" but I'd rather have a higher chance of obtaining my CCW than argue over a form.

Good cause letter - didn't think I needed one and was avoiding having to send one unless I had to. Plus, didn't expect them to get back to me as fast as they did.

[bootcamp]

Has anyone successfully obtained their CCW in Alameda County? ....Asks the patiently waiting law abiding citizen over here...

[dirtymaxx12]

Waiting to hear back. All of my info has been submitted.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Teacher]

Had a chance meeting with the Police Chief of City of Alameda last night. All chiefs in Alameda County just had meeting with Sheriff and he flatly stated that if Peruta was upheld an applicant in order to get a permit would need to petition for a writ to have the chiefs and sheriff to obey the court.

That is scary. But we will see what happens

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Teacher

Had a chance meeting with the Police Chief of City of Alameda last night. All chiefs in Alameda County just had meeting with Sheriff and he flatly stated that if Peruta was upheld an applicant in order to get a permit would need to petition for a writ to have the chiefs and sheriff to obey the court.

That is scary. But we will see what happens

That's the boast a Sheriff makes before County Counsel explains how he's just enriching our lawyers.

Bring it.

-Gene

[oepirate]

Indeed, as a resident of Alameda county I look forward to my tax dollars paying Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Gura. Maybe Alameda will start doing their own rather than passing it to the sheriff. I can dream, right?

[ChibiPaw]

Not likely. I wrote in another thread that the City of Alameda Police Chief is definitely anti-rights tuesday when I spoke to him. He's really bent that it will be over turned in a few weeks. From what my impression, they, at at least alameda chief has no clue what they're up against.

[VIctor P]

123456789

[Hank Dodge]

I called the Sheriff Dept. this morning to inquire if their policy had changed any due to the recent 9th Circuit ruling. I was told flatly that "it was being appealed at many levels" and the standing policies would remain in place. I was told that issuance was very rare and that the whole process would be costly and take well over a year to decide if I was worthy of being granted a permit. I was also told that if I did decide to apply, in addition to the online forms, I would need to supply a "good cause" statement and a "letter of support" from my employer acknowledging that I was applying for the permit and that he was not opposed to it. Basically, the the lady did everything she could trying to talk me out of applying.

So much for becoming "shall issue" any time soon.......

[Barbarossa]

Who is the CLEO for the city of Dublin? I know they contract with the county.

Would it be Tom McCarthy?
http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=91

Anyone know his stance on all this?

[Window_Seat]

Alameda is one of those "hold-out" counties that will kick & scream its way out of compliance until they are threatened with contempt charges.

Erik.

[Domingo]

co co co is right along with Alameda county

[Hank Dodge]

Originally Posted by Window_Seat

Alameda is one of those "hold-out" counties that will kick & scream its way out of compliance until they are threatened with contempt charges.

Erik.

Why is that? Why do they make it such an issue to disarm honest, responsible people willing to take the needed step of providing protection for themselves and their families that law enforcement just simply cannot provide?? I don't understand that mentality.

[DemocracyEnaction]

Originally Posted by Hank Dodge

Why is that? Why do they make it such an issue to disarm honest, responsible people willing to take the needed step of providing protection for themselves and their families that law enforcement just simply cannot provide?? I don't understand that mentality.

It's called Elitist Liberalism.

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

That's the boast a Sheriff makes before County Counsel explains how he's just enriching our lawyers.



Bring it.



-Gene

So, who do I talk to, to get you to write a letter to our county counsel to get ours going the right direction



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Hank Dodge

I called the Sheriff Dept. this morning to inquire if their policy had changed any due to the recent 9th Circuit ruling. I was told flatly that "it was being appealed at many levels" and the standing policies would remain in place. [yada, yada, yada] Basically, the the lady did everything she could trying to talk me out of applying.

So much for becoming "shall issue" any time soon.......

Um, I know this may be difficult for the sheriff's staff to understand (i.e., above their pay grade), but Peruta is NOT being appealed at ANY level at this time! Ol' Kammie is TRYING to be able to ASK for an appeal, but she hasn't been granted even that yet. If CA9 does grant that, THEN they'll decide whether to grant or deny her en banc appeal request. After that, if it is granted, the question is whether she'll win it. But all that may be academic if SCOTUS grants cert. to Drake in late April....

Pietro-Yolo are ASKING for an appeal in Richards, but, currently that has NOT been granted. So again, there is NO live appeal that route.

fyi We should have a much better idea of how the cards will fall by the end of April.