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.

[Chewy65]

"I know nothing - nothing!" Everyone, including SCOTUS, says Cali is a "may-issue" state, but is it? Is the use of "may" in PC 26150 permissive or mandatory? Compare 26150 to 26205 and ask why an issuer is only required to notify an applicant of the "requirement" that was not satified when denial is made. Applying rules of stat construction how do things come out. Kinda looks like Sacramento was limiting issuance to when the requirements were made, which is when the Sheriff may issue. Had the lawmakers wanted to make suitability a requirement, they easily could. Or 26205 could have required a denyer to notify of the "reasons" for the denial; not the requirement. Just saying. Thoughts? I have none and know nothing.

I do know something. I can't type worth squat.

[Rusty Bolts]

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 see. So you are alright with a poll tax, I take it? Perfectly fine with an annual fee to attend the church of your choice? No problem with a slightly higher tax rate to ensure your coverage by the 4th Amendment? Only $50 and you won't get beaten down by the roadside at your next traffic stop? Seriously?

For what other right does the Government require a minimum level of competence? Journalism? Clergy? Sharing your thoughts and opinions on the interwebs? THE GOVERNMENT IMPOSING ANY FEE TO EXERCISE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Period. End of Discussion.

Just my opinion, but it is very true.

Rusty Bolts

[Noobie678]

Originally Posted by Rusty Bolts

I see. So you are alright with a poll tax, I take it? Perfectly fine with an annual fee to attend the church of your choice? No problem with a slightly higher tax rate to ensure your coverage by the 4th Amendment? Only $50 and you won't get beaten down by the roadside at your next traffic stop? Seriously?

For what other right does the Government require a minimum level of competence? Journalism? Clergy? Sharing your thoughts and opinions on the interwebs? THE GOVERNMENT IMPOSING ANY FEE TO EXERCISE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Period. End of Discussion.

Just my opinion, but it is very true.

Rusty Bolts

I do not disagree with you but this is the reality we live and and prior to Bruen we had virtual no issue (unless you were well connected or had sufficient cash to fill a large duffel bag and give to your sheriffs re-election fund). My point is that the qualification is an objective requirement and I feel that the limited resources of the pro-2A side would be better spent going after the low hanging fruit in the subjective requirements that are still being imposed in defiance of Bruen, including psych evaluations, reference letters, etc.

[Rusty Bolts]

Why would you ignore the qualification requirement, if it is as unconstitutional as the rest (and it is)? It may be objective, but it is still a violation of the Second Amendment.

Still my opinion and still very true.

Rusty Bolts

[Chewy65]

Let me be a tad clearer as to what I think. 26205 only provides that denial letters specify the "requirement" that was not met, because the Legislature intended that 26150 directed a licensing authority shall issue the four requirements being satisfied. This is a case in which "may" is directory and not permissive.

Admitedly, I have not done a Legislative History and the results of one could be critical.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

"I know nothing - nothing!" Everyone, including SCOTUS, says Cali is a "may-issue" state, but is it? Is the use of "may" in PC 26150 permissive or mandatory? Compare 26150 to 26205 and ask why an issuer is only required to notify an applicant of the "requirement" that was not satified when denial is made. Applying rules of stat construction how do things come out. Kinda looks like Sacramento was limiting issuance to when the requirements were made, which is when the Sheriff may issue. Had the lawmakers wanted to make suitability a requirement, they easily could. Or 26205 could have required a denyer to notify of the "reasons" for the denial; not the requirement. Just saying. Thoughts? I have none and know nothing.

I do know something. I can't type worth squat.

My answer is simple. Last week I had my application/LiveScan interview. The Deputy went out of his way to explain that carry is a "privilege - not a right in CA".

His Sheriff CLEARLY never even read Bruen - let alone adheres to it.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Think. You are smarter than that.

Then again, I have been wrong.

Answer these simple questions.

If "may' is read as permissive, is 26150's constitutionality placed in doubt?Why is it you haven't applied the following canons of construction that I elsewhere brought up? If it is, why aren't one or both following Canons applied? [This should be done after enjoining any consideration GMC.]

Constitutional-Doubt Canon. A statute should be interpreted in a way that avoids placing its constitutionality in doubt.

Avoidance Canon (sometimes used interchangeably with above) - If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems. In the US, this canon has grown stronger in recent history. The traditional avoidance canon required the court to choose a different interpretation only when one interpretation was actually unconstitutional. The modern avoidance canon tells the court to choose a different interpretation when another interpretation merely raises constitutional doubts.

[Chewy65]

“To the extent there are multiple plausible interpretations of (history), we will favor the one that is more consistent with the Second Amendment’s command.”

By whom and where was that written and does it fit in with interpreting "may"?

I am only so sorry that I don't have august supporting authorities as your's.

MAY has been recognized as being possibly MANDATORY in STATUTES, as far back as 1856 in LAW SCHOOL DICTIONARIES. Depending on context of usage.

Now that is heavy stuff and it supports what I have been saying. Since the plain meaning of whether may is prermissive or mandatory depends on context and here the Court will favor the interpretaion most favorable to the command of the 2A - which is that Cali law is going to be interpreted as shall-issue. That or it will simply be declared unconstitutional and enjoined from enforcement.

[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.

Update: I can confirm from seeing a written document at ACSO and speaking with an employee that they are indeed requiring an annual re-qualification.

[Chewy65]

"'Posited on the premise that Congress legislates in the light of constitutional limitations,' 1 the Constitutional-Doubt Canon provides that federal courts should construe statutes so that they do not violate the Constitution.2 Describing the Constitutional-Doubt Canon, Justice Brandeis stated: 'When the validity of an act . . . is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised . . . [the Court] will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.' 3 Consequently, if a statute is susceptible to two plausible interpretations, one of which violates the Constitution, the Constitutional-Doubt Canon instructs courts to choose the interpretation consistent with the Constitution.4 If the statute is not susceptible to a plausible constitutional interpretation, the Constitutional-Doubt Canon is inapplicable.5 The Constitutional-Doubt Canon cannot be construed to make a statute broader6 or be applied to executive actions.7"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...-canon#fn9art3

Then see United States ex rel. Att'y Gen. v. Del. & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366, 407 (1909), "[W]hen the constitutionality of a statute is assailed, if the statute be reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, it is our plain duty to adopt that construction which will save the statute from constitutional infirmity" cited in Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848. Courts must "read the statute to eliminate those doubts so long as such a reading is not plainly contrary to the intent of Congress," X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. at 78.

"The word 'may,' in public statutes is often used for must or shall and is construed imperatively." Estate of Ballentine , 45 Cal. 696. I guess there is a teens weensy chance that 26150 is reasonably susceptible to having "may" interpreted as "shall". Then there is Hayes v. County of Los Angeles, 99 Cal. 74, 80 [33 P. 766] for the proposition that “whenever the public interest or individual rights call for its exercise -- the language used, though permissive in form, is in fact peremptory.”

So it all comes down to three things. 1) Is the Constutionality of PC 26150 in dispute? It is. 2) Is 26150 reasonably susceptible to "may" being interpreted to mandate issuance? It is. 3) Will thatinterpretation save the section from being found in violation of the Second Amendment. It will.

[M1A Rifleman]

Any updates on this issue? I read in the ccw forum Alameda is taking over a year just to respond to applications in scheduling an interview. This slow walking the process would not appear to be compliant.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman

Any updates on this issue? I read in the ccw forum Alameda is taking over a year just to respond to applications in scheduling an interview. This slow walking the process would not appear to be compliant.

From what I have read, CRPA got complacent and is sitting by idly because they see Alameda county is making SOME progress, regardless of it is extremely slowly progress, they are nonetheless content with that

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

From what I have read, CRPA got complacent and is sitting by idly because they see Alameda county is making SOME progress, regardless of it is extremely slowly progress, they are nonetheless content with that

Please share these sources from which you have read.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Please share these sources from which you have read.

Here you go again man, if you're gonna put italics on my statement, at least make sure to put them on everything I said as it would make much more sense . I stated that they were "sitting by idly because they see Alameda is making SOME progress, regardless if it is extremely slow progress" which by from what I last I read on the Alameda county CCW section was true. I gathered all this from tweets that were made from one of their attorneys on Twitter that were reposted here not too long ago.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

It is pretty sad that it's taking longer than ever for law-abiding Alameda County residents to receive their CCW permits, despite initial pressure from CRPA. It took me 9 months to get mine, but that was after applying on the day the Bruen decision was handed down and a LOT of following up and reminders from myself to ACSO reminding them of penal codes, etc. They still were dragging their feet.

And despite telling us that they've added more staff and whatnot, it's now taking applicants even longer to get through the process. I know CRPA has a LOT on their plate right now, and now sure if they're more focused on those issues that affect the entire state compared to this issue that only affects one county, but it does seem a little liek they've moved on from this issue. In all honesty I haven't really followed this much after receiving my permit back in March, but one thing I will say is this...I am pretty sure if there was a larger voice and more people made more of an issue about it to the CRPA they probably would have vested more time into dealing with this issue here in Alameda County. Too many were complacent and were pretty coral int he beginning and mocked those of us who did apply at the time of the ruling and were very adamant that we were wasting our time and that they would just sit back and not bother because it was too much hassle for them, and would wait until the process got easier. I blame those folks mostly for being lazy and not participating, thinking they'd jsut sit back until the county started issuing with shorter time frame. This is pretty much why they haven't make it easier. Nobody is really putting much pressure on them to do so and they know most of you will just not even bother.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Vinnie Boombatz

It is pretty sad that it's taking longer than ever for law-abiding Alameda County residents to receive their CCW permits, despite initial pressure from CRPA. It took me 9 months to get mine, but that was after applying on the day the Bruen decision was handed down and a LOT of following up and reminders from myself to ACSO reminding them of penal codes, etc. They still were dragging their feet.

And despite telling us that they've added more staff and whatnot, it's now taking applicants even longer to get through the process. I know CRPA has a LOT on their plate right now, and now sure if they're more focused on those issues that affect the entire state compared to this issue that only affects one county, but it does seem a little liek they've moved on from this issue. In all honesty I haven't really followed this much after receiving my permit back in March, but one thing I will say is this...I am pretty sure if there was a larger voice and more people made more of an issue about it to the CRPA they probably would have vested more time into dealing with this issue here in Alameda County. Too many were complacent and were pretty coral int he beginning and mocked those of us who did apply at the time of the ruling and were very adamant that we were wasting our time and that they would just sit back and not bother because it was too much hassle for them, and would wait until the process got easier. I blame those folks mostly for being lazy and not participating, thinking they'd jsut sit back until the county started issuing with shorter time frame. This is pretty much why they haven't make it easier. Nobody is really putting much pressure on them to do so and they know most of you will just not even bother.

That was exactly my point, some of us are coming up on 1 whole year since we applied and have not seen one bit of activity in our applications , you think by this point we would have at least gotten an interview or interview date but nothing

[Vinnie Boombatz]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

That was exactly my point, some of us are coming up on 1 whole year since we applied and have not seen one bit of activity in our applications , you think by this point we would have at least gotten an interview or interview date but nothing

You guys missed the boat on that one. Where were you and everyone else early on? CRPA in my opinion got such low support from people in Alameda County, I don't blame that they packed it in and focused their efforts elsewhere. Seems to be the typical way though. Bitch and moan about it and expect others to step and do the work and then reap the benefits later. Problem is that ship has sailed in this county and this is what you guys are stuck with and I'm sorry to say it's mostly your own fault.

[Kestryll]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

From what I have read, CRPA got complacent and is sitting by idly because they see Alameda county is making SOME progress, regardless of it is extremely slowly progress, they are nonetheless content with that

Originally Posted by pacrat

Please share these sources from which you have read.

I would like to know your source as well. Specifically, not vaguely or innuendo.

And pacrat drop the insults, attitude and rude comments or I WILL ban you for the rest of the year.

Is this clear?

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

I would like to know your source as well. Specifically, not vaguely or innuendo.

And pacrat drop the insults, attitude and rude comments or I WILL ban you for the rest of the year.

Is this clear?

I hear you Mr CRPA Board of Directors Member.

[pacrat]

Point of fact;

That was exactly my point, some of us are coming up on 1 whole year since we applied and have not seen one bit of activity in our applications , you think by this point we would have at least gotten an interview or interview date but nothing

This recent post in the Los Angeles CCW thread:

Member Betfair39 ,,,, Post # 15,882,,,, posted 7-1-23 ,,,, 9 days ago.

06/27/2022: Mailed in application
09/19/2022: Check cashed in
...Still waiting for a call

^^^ GEE THAT LOOKS LIKE ALMOST THE SAME EXACT TIMELINE ^^^ And LACo has been approving almost all applications for several years now.


Joining CRPA approx 7 months after making a CCW application, [timeline provided by SilveradpColt21] in post #33 of this same thread, on 3-5-23. And above [top] quote from yesterday.

Then publicly berating and accusing CRPA of complacency, and sitting by idly.

Especially when considering the almost 2 dozen ongoing litigations being handled by CRPAs 12 attorneys, that will benefit ALL OF Ca GUN OWNERS. Not only CCW applicants in the few Anti CCW counties.

Anybody reading this can make their own determination as to the reasonableness of expectations.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Point of fact;




This recent post in the Los Angeles CCW thread:

Member Betfair39 ,,,, Post # 15,882,,,, posted 7-1-23 ,,,, 9 days ago.



^^^ GEE THAT LOOKS LIKE ALMOST THE SAME EXACT TIMELINE ^^^ And LACo has been approving almost all applications for several years now.


Joining CRPA approx 7 months after making a CCW application, [timeline provided by SilveradpColt21] in post #33 of this same thread, on 3-5-23. And above [top] quote from yesterday.

Then publicly berating and accusing CRPA of complacency, and sitting by idly.

Especially when considering the almost 2 dozen ongoing litigations being handled by CRPAs 12 attorneys, that will benefit ALL OF Ca GUN OWNERS. Not only CCW applicants in the few Anti CCW counties.

Anybody reading this can make their own determination as to the reasonableness of expectations.

Dude just stop, you've already thrown enough insults and shown what kind of a low human being you truly are, throw the white flag and you go your way and go my way, not really sure what point you feel the need to prove by going on about this, you already said what you said.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

Dude just stop, you've already thrown enough insults and shown what kind of a low human being you truly are, throw the white flag and you go your way and go my way, not really sure what point you feel the need to prove by going on about this, you already said what you said.

You call me a [a low human being]. For posting factually accurate references to your own posts. Which provide a timeline, That YOU POSTED ON A PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM.

And then you claim I insulted you. .

If you, feel insulted, by your own words, in your own posts. That is an issue you should take up with your own mirror.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by pacrat

You call me a [a low human being]. For posting factually accurate references to your own posts. Which provide a timeline, That YOU POSTED ON A PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM.

And then you claim I insulted you. .

If you, feel insulted, by your own words, in your own posts. That is an issue you should take up with your own mirror.

You know clearly what you said and did, that's exactly why Kes called you out on it and threatened with banning you for the rest of the year, I would say you probably said some pretty demeaning things if you are getting that kind of a threat, but what do I know, it's probably second nature for you to carry yourself in that manner and say such vulgar things at this point

[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.

SCOTUS DID NOT just say "objective". It also said NOT ONEROUS or TOO TIME CONSUMING.

It is both onerous and too time consuming to have to qualify every year.

[M1A Rifleman]

Hey CRPA, notice the newest post in the Alameda County CCW section.

The county is currently processing applications up to #850, but current backlog is up to # 2688.

This means at the county?s pace of slow walking processing of applications, it will take up to near two years just to get the initial interview, wow.

What happened to the lawsuit ? Seems like the county is giving everyone the finger.

[Gryff]

Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman

Hey CRPA, notice the newest post in the Alameda County CCW section.

The county is currently processing applications up to #850, but current backlog is up to # 2688.

This means at the county?s pace of slow walking processing of applications, it will take up to near two years just to get the initial interview, wow.

What happened to the lawsuit ? Seems like the county is giving everyone the finger.

This also means the ACSO has taken in almost $270,000 of additional (and non-returnable) revenue without any significant increase in resources for issuing permits. Sweet deal for the Sheriff’s Department.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman

Hey CRPA, notice the newest post in the Alameda County CCW section.

The county is currently processing applications up to #850, but current backlog is up to # 2688.

This means at the county's pace of slow walking processing of applications, it will take up to near two years just to get the initial interview, wow.

What happened to the lawsuit? Seems like the county is giving everyone the finger.

The same massive delays are happening in places like Santa Clara County. I find the situation absolutely infuriating.

[M1A Rifleman]

In reviewing activity of others, once a person receives an interview, the process seems to take about 3 months for issuance.

Why does it take over 12 months, now closer to 15 to 24 months to start the interview process. It?s not rocket science to interview and background check usual the livesscan.

Wonder why the suit is not moving on this, I thought CRPA was receiving regular reports from the Sheriff supposedly showing they are processing, but their lazy approach in processing can?t be right. Maybe the eye is on suit for SB2 ?