CRPA demand letter to CA sheriffs that won't issue

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

I’d like to see the issuance taken away from sheriffs and police chief and issued by the DOJ upon passing the background check to by the handgun.
Centralize it, add a box onto the DROS, and if a picture and finger print on a credit card size piece of plastic
It also narrows the scope of who needs to be sued.

Given that the majority of Sheriffs are shall issue or nearly so, this is a bad idea.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Given that the majority of Sheriffs are shall issue or nearly so, this is a bad idea.

True, the DOJ may be no issue and they probably will get away with it .

[SharedShots]

"In our earlier letters we stated that CRPA would be patient as departments transitioned to shall-issue permitting systems."

Patient. Why?

Earlier letters. Okay, anyone see the problem? How many letters? Is this the final letter or the final final letter?

When lines drawn in the sand are stepped over or ignored, why is anyone going to take this seriously? I applaud the effort but at some point, instead of writing letters saying there was patience there must be a realization that they simply do not care. They suffer no personal liability, no jeopardy to their jobs and the reason is pretty simple:

So long as they issue just a few, the fortunate all run around at election time saying things like "at least they issue some so we're good" (having gotten theirs).

If you are going to go the legal process route, not much motivates someone more than getting served. That gets movement. A letter does not except show weakness. If you're saying you'll do something, don't say it, don't warn it, don't project it - just do it.

The SCOTUS made a decision, why on earth is their any warning letters after that? See the concern? SCOTUS was the decision, warning time was over at that instant. Warnings are before SCOTUS and letters after than are just stepping back and retrying something already decided.

Don't we all know and have seen the UN condemn terrorism for the 1,000,000 time with a harshly written letter? People who don't care or respect your position also don't care of respect your letters. They aren't worth the paper they are written on.

It is like when someone buys something from you and then doesn't pay the invoice. So they are sent a letter - ignored. They get a warning - ignored. Just how many times must anyone ask for what is rightfully theirs before they go the full monte? ONCE! Ask once because anything after that is just wasted money.

While I think lawsuits in California when it comes to 2/A issues haven't proven to be very worthwhile (and some freedom week is hardly a win of anything) if that is the route then it's way past time to either poop or get off the pot. The only reason lawsuits in Ca might start to have traction is because someone in NY did something, they didn't talk about it, they did it. We're riding their coat tails.

They've already figured out how to shut people up, issue the squeaky wheel some grease.



.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by SharedShots

"In our earlier letters we stated that CRPA would be patient as departments transitioned to shall-issue permitting systems."

Patient. Why?

Earlier letters. Okay, anyone see the problem? How many letters? Is this the final letter or the final final letter?

When lines drawn in the sand are stepped over or ignored, why is anyone going to take this seriously? I applaud the effort but at some point, instead of writing letters saying there was patience there must be a realization that they simply do not care. They suffer no personal liability, no jeopardy to their jobs and the reason is pretty simple:

So long as they issue just a few, the fortunate all run around at election time saying things like "at least they issue some so we're good" (having gotten theirs).

If you are going to go the legal process route, not much motivates someone more than getting served. That gets movement. A letter does not except show weakness. If you're saying you'll do something, don't say it, don't warn it, don't project it - just do it.

The SCOTUS made a decision, why on earth is their any warning letters after that? See the concern? SCOTUS was the decision, warning time was over at that instant. Warnings are before SCOTUS and letters after than are just stepping back and retrying something already decided.

Don't we all know and have seen the UN condemn terrorism for the 1,000,000 time with a harshly written letter? People who don't care or respect your position also don't care of respect your letters. They aren't worth the paper they are written on.

It is like when someone buys something from you and then doesn't pay the invoice. So they are sent a letter - ignored. They get a warning - ignored. Just how many times must anyone ask for what is rightfully theirs before they go the full monte? ONCE! Ask once because anything after that is just wasted money.

While I think lawsuits in California when it comes to 2/A issues haven't proven to be very worthwhile (and some freedom week is hardly a win of anything) if that is the route then it's way past time to either poop or get off the pot. The only reason lawsuits in Ca might start to have traction is because someone in NY did something, they didn't talk about it, they did it. We're riding their coat tails.

They've already figured out how to shut people up, issue the squeaky wheel some grease.

SharedShots, just how long have you actually been a MEMBER OF CRPA?

[Ron Jeremey]

Originally Posted by pacrat

SharedShots, just how long have you actually been a MEMBER OF CRPA?

I'm not sure what that matters, his point stands. Their silence is disheartening.
For what it's worth, I've given them enough money to pay for SharedShots membership too.

[Bert Gamble]

They sent a similar letter the the Colusa Sheriff a few years back. When he refused to comply they said Colusa was not worth fighting for. You may think that Colusa has been “shall Issue” for many years, but that is incorrect. They were “Shall Issue” for applications that they would accept. The problem was, the Sheriff would not accept applications from anyone who resided within a city limit.

There is a new Sheriff and I do not know if he accepts applications from all county residents or not.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Ron Jeremey

[1] ... I'm not sure what that matters, [2] ... his point stands. [2a] ...Their silence is disheartening.
[3] ... For what it's worth, I've given them enough money to pay for SharedShots membership too.

[1] ... Well it matters because this is the CRPA forum. Unless he is an actual CRPA MEMBER, he has no standing to criticize actions of CRPA "HERE". He can join those actually doing their part to support 2A in Ca. Or take his ignorance to OT.

[2] ... His so called "point" is nothing but the wishful ramblings of someone totally ignorant of the reality, of our judicial system. [a] ... A world class 2A CIVIL RIGHTS ORG, and litigation firm NOT discussing legal stratagem on an open internet forum. YEAH RIGHT. Shame on them.

[3] ... Good for you, SO WHAT? I have done same, and am a CRPA LIFE MEMBER. Doesn't mean I'm willing to support the ignorant ravings of a 2A WELFARE CASE. NO WAY am I willing to defend those that don't at least carry their own weight.

Now I will support my premise regarding "ignorance", and "wishful ramblings".

The SCOTUS made a decision, why on earth is their any warning letters after that? See the concern? SCOTUS was the decision, warning time was over at that instant. Warnings are before SCOTUS and letters after than are just stepping back and retrying something already decided.

Somebody doesn't know that SCOTUS set a "PRECEDENT". It's DECESION DIDN'T MIRACULOUSLY WIPE OUT EVERY 2A INFRINGEMENT ACROSS THE COUNTRY. Each and every prior infringement to 2A still needs to be individually LITIGATED. To remove the infringements. The LETTERS FROM CRPA. Are a showing on INTENT. To litigate for NON-compliance with the "THT" SCOTUS precedent. Assuring a defendant's loss at trial.

But nobody wants to go to the expense of a trial if it can be avoided. NOT SMART to spend millions or tens of millions of MEMBERS DOLLARS. And YEARS if NOT DECADES in court. If a few threatening letters of intent. Can get the same result within a few months. Or hell, even a year or two.

While I think lawsuits in California when it comes to 2/A issues haven't proven to be very worthwhile (and some freedom week is hardly a win of anything) if that is the route then it's way past time to either poop or get off the pot. The only reason lawsuits in Ca might start to have traction is because someone in NY did something, they didn't talk about it, they did it. We're riding their coat tails.

^^^ MORE IGNORANCE ^^^ Peruta finally made it to SCOTUS June of 2017. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf . 4 yrs prior to NYSRPA. And with todays make up at SCOTUS. Would have likely been granted cert. CRPA has had MULTIPLE SUITS in the Courts continuously. "They/WE" cannot be faulted for lack of cert at SCOTUS. The COURT changed. And NYSRPA was heard. It is what it is.

Bolded in second quote; .... "someone in NY did something". OK, yes they did. Same thing as was done in many states, including Ca, over many years.

So what has "someone" who calls himself "SharedShots" done?

Is he a member, is a fair question. Especially considering all the ignorant negativity he posts about the good citizens of Ca, and CRPA that's been in this fight since 1982 and the gun grab of Prop-15 in that year. THAT WE/THEY STOPPED.

CaDOJ according to their website has "OVER 1,100" attorneys. Which are funded by every tax payer in Ca.

CRPA has 13 in the Michel & Assoc firm. Funded solely by the membership and donations from members.

WE, THE CRPA, are vastly outnumbered. At the polls, in the pocketbook, and in the courts. That's REALITY. FILING SUIT AND GOING TO COURT IS COSTLY. And time consuming. CRPA would be terribly negligent to go tilting at windmills over slow issuance of CCWs at this time. No matter what interweb complainers post regarding what they want now.

As a citizen of the US, and presumably a resident of Ca. He has the right to file suit anytime he wants, to redress infringements by government entities. Then he won't be wasting his time posting on the interwebs that "SOMEONE ELSE" isn't doing it for him.

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by pacrat

SharedShots, just how long have you actually been a MEMBER OF CRPA?

Long enough. Are you now going to tell me there is some time duration before someone can say something?

Typical forum tactic.

For all those running their mouths about standing, I have standing, you just don't like it. I don't run around with stickers and pasties all over the place to justify anything.

Don't tell me all that has been done, this entire forum is witness to what hasn't been done and always excused by those who think writing a check is doing something.

You know what? Some you jump immediately to making everything personal. Funny how that works isn't it, but you only do it for certain reasons and certain times. If you enjoy the process, have at it but just because someone questions your sensibilities you get in a wad.

Same people, you know who you are. The status quo.

"WE, THE CRPA, are vastly outnumbered. At the polls, in the pocketbook, and in the courts. That's REALITY. FILING SUIT AND GOING TO COURT IS COSTLY."

If you never do anything about being outnumbered that isn't going to fix itself and lawsuits only will not fix it either. That is the reality.

Never heard of: Don't threaten a lawsuit more than once? Its because your opposition stops taking you seriously. If you're not prepared to do it after the first time, then don't say it.

Preliminary warning. Post preliminary warning. Pre-final warning. Conference? 2nd Final Warning. Final warning. Final final warning. Gonna do it. Really.

Why? Why not one notice and then lawsuit or if you're not ready, need more money or whatever resources, say nothing.





.

[SilveradoColt21]

[SharedShots]

The way it looks is that there is the one way or the highway and get out the hot oil if anyone even dares say or comment on anything.

We're outnumbered at the polls for one reason, apathy. After that is because a singular focus on how to get back what was lost. Newsflash, no lawsuit is going to make a different except in the short term unless there is support for the result. A new law can be created to work around any lawsuit no matter who, including SCOTUS, says what. Eventually that court will get packed or as usual the state simply ignores it.

I've never stated of even implied lawsuits weren't part of fixing the mess we're in, I do question some of the tactics because at some point doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same result should be a clue.





.

[pacrat]

As a citizen of the US, and presumably a resident of Ca. He has the right to file suit anytime he wants, to redress infringements by government entities. Then he won't be wasting his time posting on the interwebs that "SOMEONE ELSE" isn't doing it for him.

^^^^^ The above option is still available to you. ^^^^^

Rather than complaining that CRPA isn't doing things to your satisfaction. Take the initiative and file suit yourself.

In your own words;

it's way past time to either poop or get off the pot.

[redhead]

Originally Posted by randomBytes

The DMV would be capable of processing CCW applications

Several years ago when I took my elderly mother to the Boise DMV to exchange her DL for a state ID care. The DMV there has a window for carry permits.

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by redhead

Several years ago when I took my elderly mother to the Boise DMV to exchange her DL for a state ID care. The DMV there has a window for carry permits.

I feel like that would never happen in CA .

[redhead]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

I feel like that would never happen in CA .

Lol, of course it won’t. I was replying to the person who said he thought the DMV could handle it. Of course they could, they do it in Idaho. But it won’t happen here.

[NorCalBusa]

Originally Posted by Fjold

Are there counties without a County Sheriff?

Santa Clara

("Acting Sheriff" for now)

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by redhead

Lol, of course it won’t. I was replying to the person who said he thought the DMV could handle it. Of course they could, they do it in Idaho. But it won’t happen here.

Guess we should all move to Idaho then .

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

Guess we should all move to Idaho then .

Not all, some of us are already in Idaho!

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Not all, some of us are already in Idaho!

Must be nice, sounds like the pastures are greener over there .

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

Must be nice, sounds like the pastures are greener over there .

Right now most of the green is covered in white and the outside temperature is 18F

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

I’d like to see the issuance taken away from sheriffs and police chief and issued by the DOJ upon passing the background check to by the handgun.
Centralize it, add a box onto the DROS, and if a picture and finger print on a credit card size piece of plastic
It also narrows the scope of who needs to be sued.

Respectfully - NO. DOJ is purposefully F'd up (they can't even do background checks for purchases - of people who ALREADY have guns!!!!).

It will take us multiple YEARS of litigation and project time to fix DOJ.

As said elsewhere - DMV coordinates donor status, handicap & veteran status and while the systems aren't linked, they work pretty well. They'd be a great place to vest this - especially if we cooed do it all online for cheap.

[clb]

Get some

[Paladin]

From the Santa Clara Co CCW application thread:

Originally Posted by sabertactics

Just heard from one of our future students that the SCCSO is about six months out on processing CCWs.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by sabertactics View Post
Just heard from one of our future students that the SCCSO is about six months out on processing CCWs.

Originally Posted by Paladin

From the Santa Clara Co CCW application thread:

So considering that NYSRPA v Bruen was a bit over six months ago. That's a year that they will continue to NOT ISSUE.

WTF, I hope the incompetent bastards are at least, a little faster than that, when responding to calls for service.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by hermosabeach

When they get to pay the legal cost of a suit, it might help city managers / city council follow a law

They never will unless we change the law. Right now, local governments self-insure (I wonder how such coverage, that covers settlements for illegal violations of rights, is even AVAILABLE commercially). Case in point - several years back the City of Pleasant Hill (using Brady campaign supplied language) started going after gun stores. They ended settling the resulting civil rights lawsuit for 400K + fees. The City paid not one dime. Insurance covered it.

[aguynamedbryan]

Just saw CRPA issued a letter to Alameda County Sheriff threatening litigation over a variety of violations, one of which was lengthy processing times. I've been assuming CRPA is aware of LA County's year+ permitting process - anyone know if that's the case? Or is there value in reaching out to them with this?

[Usual_Suspect]

Originally Posted by aguynamedbryan

Just saw CRPA issued a letter to Alameda County Sheriff threatening litigation over a variety of violations, one of which was lengthy processing times. I've been assuming CRPA is aware of LA County's year+ permitting process - anyone know if that's the case? Or is there value in reaching out to them with this?

I know a few who let CRPA know, and CRPA did send then Sheriff Villanueva a letter, not sure if Luna has been served with one.
There is a processing requirement by law, but there is no penalty for not complying. All that will likely happen is, LASD will come in, tell the Court they are issuing and making a good faith effort to comply with the law, but the BoS holds the budget purse strings and chooses not to fully fund the program, and the issuance time has decreased as they are making a good faith effort to comply with the statute. The Court will then appoint a monitor to see that LASD is issuing and won't do much else. The monitor will report progress every 30 days, and LASD is processing faster now that 6 months ago. You need to show how you are being damaged by the wait, which, unfortunately is tough to do.
You can always file a Write of Mandamus and compel the Sheriff to comply, but no penalty, probably the same thing. It's will almost be like a consent decree, they will admit they are behind, show they are trying to catch back up.

I am trying to figure out why 1 County is being put on notice for Psychological Testing and Good Moral Character, yet I read other City and County Agencies are requiring it, yet no letter to them.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by Usual_Suspect

I know a few who let CRPA know, and CRPA did send then Sheriff Villanueva a letter, not sure if Luna has been served with one.
There is a processing requirement by law, but there is no penalty for not complying. All that will likely happen is, LASD will come in, tell the Court they are issuing and making a good faith effort to comply with the law, but the BoS holds the budget purse strings and chooses not to fully fund the program, and the issuance time has decreased as they are making a good faith effort to comply with the statute. The Court will then appoint a monitor to see that LASD is issuing and won't do much else. The monitor will report progress every 30 days, and LASD is processing faster now that 6 months ago. You need to show how you are being damaged by the wait, which, unfortunately is tough to do.
You can always file a Write of Mandamus and compel the Sheriff to comply, but no penalty, probably the same thing. It's will almost be like a consent decree, they will admit they are behind, show they are trying to catch back up.

I am trying to figure out why 1 County is being put on notice for Psychological Testing and Good Moral Character, yet I read other City and County Agencies are requiring it, yet no letter to them.

Are you an attorney? Because I frequently see language in legal briefs stating that deprivation of rights constitutes irreparable harm. The clear language of Bruen says permits can be required but they can't be discretionary, expensive or take too much time. A lot of bad things can happen in 6 to 12 months while they figure out how to do something as simple as running a NICS background check (which takes a few minutes) to determine of you are prohibited or not. Seems a simple enough argument to make. What am I missing?

[Usual_Suspect]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Are you an attorney? Because I frequently see language in legal briefs stating that deprivation of rights constitutes irreparable harm. The clear language of Bruen says permits can be required but they can't be discretionary, expensive or take too much time. A lot of bad things can happen in 6 to 12 months while they figure out how to do something as simple as running a NICS background check (which takes a few minutes) to determine of you are prohibited or not. Seems a simple enough argument to make. What am I missing?

I am not an Attorney. If I had my way, the 2nd Amendment would be exercised the same as the 1st Amendment. Do you think the masses would allow for any legislation that required you to jump through the same hoops to get a CCW, as standing on a street corner with a sign in protest? I highly doubt it. Could you picture this, to stand on that street corner, you need to apply, wait until we tell you, get your fingerprints scanned, a criminal history check, and a protest check in lieu of a firearms check, a Psychological Screening, a face to face interview, and you need 3 references to show all you are going to do is protest on the corner, you need to pay for the protest permit, or PP as it is called.
We all know if it to be enacted, there would be recalls and politicians looking for a job.

The problem with litigation when it comes to deprivation of rights, when the Government is a defendant, there is a rarely a quick fix. Look at how many Government Entities have been working under Consent Decree's. They go on for decades.
I am ok with CRPA taking it one step at a time a prioritizing where they spend their capital, start with the Agencies that are not issuing, then work on those that are requiring Psychological Testing, then Moral Character. There are many that are disqualified for a CCW based off of those 2 alone, which is a permanent denial. That to me is more harmful than a delay.
Prior to moving, I applied at LASD, supplied them with reports and court paperwork showing there was a credible ongoing threat, and after 16 months of waiting, not so much as a letter saying we received your application, moved my business, and my family to Nevada. I had my CCW in 2 weeks, the process is streamlined in Nevada. I still donate to CRPA, even after leaving. I hope it stops the insanity, and hopefully will prevent it from spreading.

[Drivedabizness]

I don't disagree with a lot of the things you're saying except for one thing - we've done entirely too much patiently waiting. As Judge Benitez stated during the 12/12 hearing, the Courts are the only peaceful way to resolve these issues. The other side would do well to remember that. And when we make demands we should only give slack where there is clear movement in the right direction. I know from personal experience of 2 IA's (Solano & Nevada Co) that have gone backwards since Bruen. I'd be happy to write checks to CRPA to support prioritized litigation.