Contra Costa

[Ron Jeremey]

Originally Posted by serper3

kind of dumb to send letters written as strongly as they did, with no legal follow up, if you ask me. seems like a great way to raise money though. maybe they are working on something, but if they are, you would hope they would say something to that extent.

Good point. I’ve already contributed. I’d be inspired to give more if they would actually do something

[street_sweepa]

"Spike in concealed carry applications forces East Bay sheriff’s office to hire additional staff".. the topic made it to kron4

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/...itional-staff/

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by street_sweepa

"Spike in concealed carry applications forces East Bay sheriff’s office to hire additional staff".. the topic made it to kron4

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/...itional-staff/

That female reporter didn’t seem very happy about the news she was reporting…

Funny how they didn’t say what a surprise it is that such demand exist all around the liberal SFBA. Either covert MAGA supporters or pro gun liberals. Either alternative must be repugnant to them.

[Paladin]

I shouldn’t be too hard on Livingston. Back when SB918(?) CCW “reform” was being debated in Sacto, he posted on his CCW application page the CA Sheriffs Association statement that they did not support the bill because it was not focused on criminals and their behavior. While they did not oppose it, they did not support it either.

[Go Navy]

Originally Posted by street_sweepa

"Spike in concealed carry applications forces East Bay sheriff’s office to hire additional staff".. the topic made it to kron4

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/...itional-staff/

Additional staff? If that means sworn officers, then it'll take months; maybe longer if they start with raw trainees who have to go through a police academy. Luckily, the County Supervisors are not part of the "defund police" movement.......or are they?

[Rachel_EBT]

Hello everyone! I am one of the reporters who wrote the Mercury News article on the CC Sheriff's press release. Before that release came out I had been talking with many applicants about their experience with the process so far. I still plan to write a more in-depth follow up. I've read through the feedback about the article on this thread here already and appreciate it all. Just want to assure everyone that I and my colleagues have been asking them questions about the CCW permit process, especially asking for numbers of permits issued so far and they simply wont return our calls or emails with answers. feel free to reach out to me on here or by email (rmercader@bayareanewsgroup.com) to share what you've experienced (you can tell me these things off the record, I wont use you name unless you give me permission). I'm also open to hearing suggestions of more specific questions that I should be asking ! (I am working on speaking with lawyers to explain the whole 90 day rule thing.)https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/11/...e-in-east-bay/

[ARFrog]

Here is a start:

Questions for Sherriff:

1.) How many applications does the department actually have at this time? What are the current actual staff resources committed to processing training and range qualification?

2.) Penal Code 26205 states:

The licensing authority shall give written notice to the applicant indicating if the license under this article is approved or denied. The licensing authority shall give this notice within 90 days of the initial application for a new license or a license renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the applicant’s criminal background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later. If the license is denied, the notice shall state which requirement was not satisfied.

How does the Sherriff justify not complying with the time frames of the law on a mass scale? What penalties should his department suffer for non-compliance?

3.) how many CCW licenses has the Sherriff actually issued since 6/26/2022 (post Bruen)? Number of license per year pre-Bruen?

4.) Many other Counties have made adjustments to their application process in order to streamline and issue or deny in a timely fashion. it would appear that the CCCSO is creating their own bottle neck to processing applications in a timely basis and thereby doing a disservice to County resident applicants. What is the department's plan to:

- help with file processing, lack of timely communication and tracking? (Note: other departments have implemented an electronic process.)

- provide for training and qualification for over 1,000 applicants? (Note: it has been stated that the department is only setup to range qualify about 45 students per month)

- to approve outside third party vendor training and range qualification?

- approve applicants in a timely fashion? ( it has been noted that a limited number of applicants have been interviewed yet these same applicants are weeks past their interviews without finalization of the process. What is the Sherriff' reluctance to finalize the process in a timely fashion?)

[Rachel_EBT]

Originally Posted by ARFrog

Here is a start:

Questions for Sherriff:

1.) How many applications does the department actually have at this time? What are the current actual staff resources committed to processing training and range qualification?

2.) Penal Code 26205 states:

The licensing authority shall give written notice to the applicant indicating if the license under this article is approved or denied. The licensing authority shall give this notice within 90 days of the initial application for a new license or a license renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the applicant’s criminal background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later. If the license is denied, the notice shall state which requirement was not satisfied.

How does the Sherriff justify not complying with the time frames of the law on a mass scale? What penalties should his department suffer for non-compliance?

3.) how many CCW licenses has the Sherriff actually issued since 6/26/2022 (post Bruen)? Number of license per year pre-Bruen?

4.) Many other Counties have made adjustments to their application process in order to streamline and issue or deny in a timely fashion. it would appear that the CCCSO is creating their own bottle neck to processing applications in a timely basis and thereby doing a disservice to County resident applicants. What is the department's plan to:

- help with file processing, lack of timely communication and tracking? (Note: other departments have implemented an electronic process.)

- provide for training and qualification for over 1,000 applicants? (Note: it has been stated that the department is only setup to range qualify about 45 students per month)

- to approve outside third party vendor training and range qualification?

- approve applicants in a timely fashion? ( it has been noted that a limited number of applicants have been interviewed yet these same applicants are weeks past their interviews without finalization of the process. What is the Sherriff' reluctance to finalize the process in a timely fashion?)

1. still waiting on them to get back to us on how many applications. the press release says over 1000 but I have spoken to people who have been told they're number 1656. I've also asked about training because the other day they told one applicant there were "pending changes" to the training requirement--they havent answered my question how what changes and why the change. I plan on asking them why they havent considered partnering up with other ranges

2. I'm speaking with a lawyer next week to answer the penalty part of this question

3. we've filed a public record request for this and also asked them to just tell us--have yet to get an answer with either avenue. (other counties have been very willing to give us these numbers)

4. Yea especially since Concord just started using Permitium, I am going to ask why the Sheriff does not do the same

[Ron Jeremey]

Originally Posted by Rachel_EBT

Hello everyone! I am one of the reporters who wrote the Mercury News article on the CC Sheriff's press release. Before that release came out I had been talking with many applicants about their experience with the process so far. I still plan to write a more in-depth follow up. I've read through the feedback about the article on this thread here already and appreciate it all. Just want to assure everyone that I and my colleagues have been asking them questions about the CCW permit process, especially asking for numbers of permits issued so far and they simply wont return our calls or emails with answers. feel free to reach out to me on here or by email (rmercader@bayareanewsgroup.com) to share what you've experienced (you can tell me these things off the record, I wont use you name unless you give me permission). I'm also open to hearing suggestions of more specific questions that I should be asking ! (I am working on speaking with lawyers to explain the whole 90 day rule thing.)https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/11/...e-in-east-bay/

Another question to ask the lawyer is about the obligation of local police departments to accept and process CCW applications. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law is that IF an agency issues them to anyone (retired officers, etc), they must issue them to any qualified resident of that city. That seems to be what the law says, but it's never been challenged in court because the department always had the subjectivity of the good cause to stand on. They no longer have that. There are members of this forum who have been told by their local Police Departments that they don't issue CCWs. I think that's illegal. Let's get a professional opinion.

[JDHCA]

Rachael_EBT.

Thanks for doing a story on this

[TheWorm1]

While the number of apps and approvals post-Bruen would be interesting, the comparison with pre-Bruen might be telling. What percentage of post-Bruen apps have been approved? What was the pre-Bruen approval rate? Why are post-Bruen apps being denied, if any?

What’s the cycle time to process a single application? How many applications are they able to process per week or month? How is their time spent % and hour wise on each application? How many FTEs are currently assigned to the program (can’t remember if it was CoCo or elsewhere that someone mentioned CCWs were only a part-time affair)?

Also, after the CCW unit completes their work and recommends an approve/deny, how long does the Sheriff himself take to sign off?

[Rachel_EBT]

Originally Posted by Ron Jeremey

Another question to ask the lawyer is about the obligation of local police departments to accept and process CCW applications. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the law is that IF an agency issues them to anyone (retired officers, etc), they must issue them to any qualified resident of that city. That seems to be what the law says, but it's never been challenged in court because the department always had the subjectivity of the good cause to stand on. They no longer have that. There are members of this forum who have been told by their local Police Departments that they don't issue CCWs. I think that's illegal. Let's get a professional opinion.

Thanks I'll make sure to ask. It's my understanding that police departments can choose to opt out or in of being an issuer. Oakley for example has opted out, per their policy. , but Concord has opted in and they've started processing permits this month. I'm waiting to hear back from Walnut Creek because I've been told by an applicant that the told him they wont process his application even though their own policy says they are a CCW issuer.......

[Rachel_EBT]

Originally Posted by lambo9mm

Also found this request of public information disclosure

Wondering if relates to the journalist work, or something else

https://www.muckrock.com/foi/contra-...ndence-136980/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think this is a journalist. Also I recently filed a public record request and they told me they stopped sending records over email/electronically.. now only by mail or you can come and pick them up. so I doubt the records (if this person even gets them) will end up being posted to muckrock. if you want to make a public record request email recordsinfo@so.cccounty.us

[ARFrog]

Other questions for Sherriff regarding restrictions on carry guns:

1.) why no allowance for red dots? For some shooters, especially those who might have glasses, a red dot that you can see without special prescription glasses might be a safer alternative. ( note: other jurisdictions allow red dots.)

2.) why no allowance for certain firearms like a 1911?

3.) why no allowance for certain gun modifications? Modifications of sights, recoil springs, trigger connectors, extended slide lock levers, extended mag release button can make the gun safer. If the gun operates properly at the range training with these modifications, then why not? (Note: other jurisdictions allow them. Also, older roster style guns often have been upgraded in newer non-roster models that are available and safe to use across the nation. So, why not in CCC?)

[Paladin]

Welcome Rachel.

Some thoughts from a long time CCW activist.

+ An incorporated non-contract city can enter an agreement (MOU) with their sheriff for the sheriff to process all applications for that cityÂ’s residents. About a decade ago the reverse was made legal: the sheriff could agree that the chief would exclusively process all applications for his city’s residents.

+ Comparing numbers of issued vs denied CCW pre and post NYSRPA is pointless. Only if you can show equivalent GCs indicating unequal protection of the law and plan on suing. Even then a court may say “Don’t waste the court’s time. Reapply now that GC is gone.”

+ Regarding cities that have pro issue policies but say they don’t issue: IIRC Standard (“Civilian”) CCWs are good for 2 years maximum, Judicial (judges, DAs/prosecutors) for 3 and Reserve (LE), for 4. Those cities usually issue only Judicial and Reserve CCWs. Is that legal? I do not know.

+ Regarding backlog of applications: the anti CCW sheriffs brought this on themselves by their restrictive GC policies. OC liberalized GC under Carona over 15 years ago and subsequent sheriffs kept that and last I recall they had ~15,000 permit holders. McGuiness liberalized Sacto in 2009 and last I recall had ~10,000 CCWs. Mims liberalized Fresno and there are ~14,000 CCWs. Then Gore of SD liberalized about 5 years ago and they have ~8,000 CCWs. Villanueva liberalized LA about 2 or 3 years ago and went from ~500 to ~1,750 IIRC.

The anti sheriffs had PLENTY of notice there was a pent up demand for CCWs. They chose to wait until they were forced to liberalize issue. They deserve no sympathy for needlessly keeping the law-abiding defenseless.

Here’s a link to a bunch of advice about applying in the pre NYSRPA days:
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1482924

[jigendaisuke]

Originally Posted by Paladin

+ Comparing numbers of issued vs denied CCW pre and post NYSRPA is pointless. Only if you can show equivalent GCs indicating unequal protection of the law and plan on suing. Even then a court may say “Don’t waste the court’s time. Reapply now that GC is gone.”

I’m not so sure this is the right way to look at it, per se…maybe we can use this to our advantage, so that for example, if you have 300 permits total issued before NYSRPA with 100 permits approved per year in CoCo, and 0 issued post Bruen, we can have one more point of info in any potential action or whatever we may or may not take as a group. It wouldn’t hurt to know, at the very least…

[TheWorm1]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Comparing numbers of issued vs denied CCW pre and post NYSRPA is pointless.

I disagree. The number or % of post-Bruen approvals should be higher now that GC isn’t required nor provides the easy, subjective “no” that it has in the past for “may issue” jurisdictions.

If the number or % of approvals post-Bruen is the same as (or fewer than) pre-Bruen, it would indicate that a jurisdiction has simply substituted or invented a different subjective reason to not issue. This is precisely what Bonta advocated in his post-Bruen memo (hardcore focus on subjective GMC criteria and judgement) isn’t it?

Pre- vs post- issuance numbers and approval rates (excluding DOJ/firearms background failures) are probably the most objective and quantifiable measure of whether anything has changed at the IA level and whether there is at least some movement towards an objective, shall issue regime.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by jigendaisuke

… we can have one more point of (useless) info in any potential (street protests? political? legal?) action or whatever we may or may not take as a group (LOL). It wouldn’t hurt to know, at the very least…

Challenger Ben Therriault tried to make CCWs an issue in the June sheriff’s election but it never took off, it didn’t even gain much traction. The average CoCoCo voter (think white soccer mom), just doesn’t care or is an anti. They’d rather give the police more power than face the fact they may become a victim of street violence and prepare for it.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by TheWorm1

If the number or % of approvals post-Bruen is the same as (or fewer than) pre-Bruen, it would indicate that a jurisdiction has simply substituted or invented a different subjective reason to not issue. This is precisely what Bonta advocated in his post-Bruen memo (hardcore focus on subjective GMC criteria and judgement) isn’t it?

So? Is that illegal? If the sheriff wants to tighten GMC to the point that there’s no increase in issued CCWs that’s within his discretion until CA9 or SCOTUS says otherwise.

Like I said, it’s a pointless exercise. But don’t let me stop you from undertaking it….

[ARFrog]

Originally Posted by Paladin

So? Is that illegal? If the sheriff wants to tighten GMC to the point that there’s no increase in issued CCWs that’s within his discretion until CA9 or SCOTUS says otherwise.

Like I said, it’s a pointless exercise. But don’t let me stop you from undertaking it….

Paladin - I appreciate your passion and long time work in the area of CCW.

While I agree with your comment that it is within the Sherriff's discretion, , my concern is that there is no transparency. There is little to no information out of the department to know what is happening or why the delays. I am not sure we know what the Sherriff's current policy actually is. Are licenses being issued - and if not why? Are the program bottlenecks warranted or a back door method of non-issue?

I am willing to give the Sherriff the benefit of the doubt initially but as time passes without information, policy confirmation, and licenses issued, then good will turns to scepticism followed by animus.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by ARFrog

Paladin - I appreciate your passion and long time work in the area of CCW.

While I agree with your comment that it is within the Sherriff's discretion, , my concern is that there is no transparency. There is little to no information out of the department to know what is happening or why the delays. I am not sure we know what the Sherriff's current policy actually is. Are licenses being issued - and if not why? Are the program bottlenecks warranted or a back door method of non-issue?

I am willing to give the Sherriff the benefit of the doubt initially but as time passes without information, policy confirmation, and licenses issued, then good will turns to scepticism followed by animus.

I bolded the key point. Basically the sheriff isn’t doing things the way you like. So what? He doesn’t care. The SFBA MSM probably likes what he’s doing. Unless someone plans on suing him ($$$,$$$), this is all pointless (but harmless), as pointless as me trying to change your guys’ minds….

So I’m gracefully bowing out, cutting my loses before I waste more of my time.

[Rachel_EBT]

I spoke with a guy in Marin who got a CCW permit a few months ago. He said over there the interview portion came first. and that you aren't asked to do the livescan part until after you "pass" the interview part.

This seems to be a better system and reduce the need for paperwork CC claims to have the most trouble with. especially since I think it is safe to assume 99.9% of you guys who are willing to do the livescan already know that you'll pass it.

what do you guys think?

[JDHCA]

I'd question why they need an interview in the first place because it's subjective, as is good moral character, as is having a proper reason for a permit. According to what I understand about the Bruen decision "subjective" is now out.

IMO, if you pass the background check and training you should get your permit.

This is a constitutional right here. Not something that's a privilege, like driving.

[jackharper]

Originally Posted by JDHCA

I'd question why they need an interview in the first place because it's subjective, as is good moral character, as is having a proper reason for a permit. According to what I understand about the Bruen decision "subjective" is now out.

IMO, if you pass the background check and training you should get your permit.

This is a constitutional right here. Not something that's a privilege, like driving.

This is often overlooked since we have been mostly prevented from exercising this right for all of our lives. It is a right. not a privilege. In an NBC article, we read: ""The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."
So, why are we tiptoeing around this delay of granting rights that are already granted to us under the Constitution? It boggles the mind. A right does not need to be allowed. It is already allowed. Yes, in history we have seen such non-granting of rights already granted. But, there is no reason to sit quietly by and hope someone gives us permission to exercise our right. Would you hesitate to speak freely in public? Would you need to ask permission to practice your religion? Does anyone have a right to prevent you from refusing to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination? No. Of course not. So what's the difference here?

[Tankerman777]

I totally agree with you!!.🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

[Ron Jeremey]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Challenger Ben Therriault tried to make CCWs an issue in the June sheriff’s election but it never took off, it didn’t even gain much traction. The average CoCoCo voter (think white soccer mom), just doesn’t care or is an anti. They’d rather give the police more power than face the fact they may become a victim of street violence and prepare for it.

I wonder how the average CoCo voter responds when the headline's focus is on the obfuscation. Livingston is an elected official, and the press is asking questions. Transparency is essential to effective democracy. The Sheriff is not only evading the question, he got the hint that the press was asking questions, and he put out a preemptive press release that didn't address the germane question. That act of defiant deception should be the story now.

Your other post said that you thought you should cut him some slack. I could not disagree more. He's an even bigger scumbag than I thought. He's not only hostile to gun owners, he's hostile to the principles of good governance.

[serper3]

Originally Posted by Rachel_EBT

I spoke with a guy in Marin who got a CCW permit a few months ago. He said over there the interview portion came first. and that you aren't asked to do the livescan part until after you "pass" the interview part.

This seems to be a better system and reduce the need for paperwork CC claims to have the most trouble with. especially since I think it is safe to assume 99.9% of you guys who are willing to do the livescan already know that you'll pass it.

what do you guys think?

Lets be honest here: how often are government systems/processes ideal, streamlined, logical, efficient, etc.? Especially when optics are such that, the agency clearly desires to decrease the impact of a program... seems like the bottle-necking is a benefit in their eyes.

I would like to ask the sheriffs office how are they tracking applicant order for scheduling interviews, range quals, etc.? Between new applicants and renewals? Software? Paper application order? It is extremely frustrating when they will not answer any of my emails on status of my application, to even confirm my place in line, when I see people on here who cleared background less than a week before me and had their interview months ago.

[Tankerman777]

Can I throw in my two cents?. If you can pass a criminal background check you should be able to conceal carry your firearms period!!!. I ALWAYS SAY THE ANSWERS ARE NOT IN THE COURTS OR THE VOTING BOOTHS THE ANSWERS ARE RIGHT THERE IN THE MIRROR! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[Paladin]

I refuse to stop anyone who wants to CC or OC without a permit…

[Bikercamper]

Originally Posted by serper3

Lets be honest here: how often are government systems/processes ideal, streamlined, logical, efficient, etc.? Especially when optics are such that, the agency clearly desires to decrease the impact of a program... seems like the bottle-necking is a benefit in their eyes.

I would like to ask the sheriff's office how are they tracking applicant order for scheduling interviews, range quals, etc.. Between new applicants and renewals? Software? Paper application order? It is extremely frustrating when they will not answer any of my emails on status of my application, to even confirm my place in line, when I see people on here who cleared background less than a week before me and had their interview months ago.

I am not confident when I see the pictures in the Sheriff's press release of the stacks and stacks of applications 2+ feet high on the corner of the desk. Maybe that was just for dramatic effect but that's not a good way to manage 1000+ applications and explains why it's not possible to tell you any status.

I would hope the Sheriff would date and time stamp the applications, maintain an inventory of what is received and status and be able to track the status. I also think these applications should be stored in locked file cabinets given the confidential information contained. Moving to Permitium would be a significant help. Hiring an administrative assistant would probably also help.

I fear there is no real process or control over the applications with those pictures.

[bonzai272]

All very good points made in these recent posts. Amen and thank you all.

[Gator15]

Originally Posted by Tankerman777

Can I throw in my two cents?. If you can pass a criminal background check you should be able to conceal carry your firearms period!!!. I ALWAYS SAY THE ANSWERS ARE NOT IN THE COURTS OR THE VOTING BOOTHS THE ANSWERS ARE RIGHT THERE IN THE MIRROR! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

^^^

That is essentially what Bruen said. Kavanaugh and Roberts however gave these Sheriffs cover with their concurrence that said states can still have permitting--which is dicta and not binding--but nonetheless cover.

[Gator15]

Originally Posted by serper3

Lets be honest here: how often are government systems/processes ideal, streamlined, logical, efficient, etc.? Especially when optics are such that, the agency clearly desires to decrease the impact of a program... seems like the bottle-necking is a benefit in their eyes.

I would like to ask the sheriffs office how are they tracking applicant order for scheduling interviews, range quals, etc.? Between new applicants and renewals? Software? Paper application order? It is extremely frustrating when they will not answer any of my emails on status of my application, to even confirm my place in line, when I see people on here who cleared background less than a week before me and had their interview months ago.

If this was a 1A issue a federal judge would have already stepped in and ordered the permits be processed immediately or he would strike down the permit requirement as an unconstitutional restraint on the right.

[jackharper]

Originally Posted by Gator15

^^^

That is essentially what Bruen said. Kavanaugh and Roberts however gave these Sheriffs cover with their concurrence that said states can still have permitting--which is dicta and not binding--but nonetheless cover.

Yes, a good point. I'm not an attorney, but in my lay opinion this is further defined by the timeframes set in stone in Penal Code Section 26205 that states "The licensing authority shall give written notice to the applicant indicating if the license under this article is approved or denied. The licensing authority shall give this notice within 90 days of the initial application for a new license or a license renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the applicant’s criminal background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later. If the license is denied, the notice shall state which requirement was not satisfied." So, it seems that "permitting" cover you mention has clearly stated time limits. Am I missing something?

[serper3]

Originally Posted by Bikercamper

I am not confident when I see the pictures in the Sheriff's press release of the stacks and stacks of applications 2+ feet high on the corner of the desk. Maybe that was just for dramatic effect but that's not a good way to manage 1000+ applications and explains why it's not possible to tell you any status.

I would hope the Sheriff would date and time stamp the applications, maintain an inventory of what is received and status and be able to track the status. I also think these applications should be stored in locked file cabinets given the confidential information contained. Moving to Permitium would be a significant help. Hiring an administrative assistant would probably also help.

I fear there is no real process or control over the applications with those pictures.

Agreed and that is my fear as well. based on my timeline, seems like i should have been contacted for interview by now.

I emailed again (3rd time) requesting an update, and finally received a response, although extremely general. just says no estimate, you will be contacted in the future. no place in line, nothing.

my app was delivered 06/30/22. Livescan cleared over 100 days ago, 08/11/22.

[LateForDinner]

My denial from Antioch PD back in September was based on "the consideration of public good, overall safety and that the application you filled out was found to be out of date."

[ARFrog]

Originally Posted by jackharper

Yes, a good point. I'm not an attorney, but in my lay opinion this is further defined by the timeframes set in stone in Penal Code Section 26205 that states "The licensing authority shall give written notice to the applicant indicating if the license under this article is approved or denied. The licensing authority shall give this notice within 90 days of the initial application for a new license or a license renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the applicant’s criminal background check from the Department of Justice, whichever is later. If the license is denied, the notice shall state which requirement was not satisfied." So, it seems that "permitting" cover you mention has clearly stated time limits. Am I missing something?

Are you missing something????

When notified of the failure to comply in a timely fashion with the referenced PC 26205 , the Sherriff's office is currently referring you back to the recent press release and informing you that you will be contacted at some unspecified time in the future.

[jackharper]

Originally Posted by ARFrog

Are you missing something????

When notified of the failure to comply in a timely fashion with the referenced PC 26205 , the Sherriff's office is currently referring you back to the recent press release and informing you that you will be contacted at some unspecified time in the future.

And this appears to be a clear violation of Penal Code 26205. So, now my blown mind stops at "does the Sheriff have an obligation to comply? If yes, then what is the remedy? If the answer is no, then why?

[Ron Jeremey]

Originally Posted by TheWorm1

I disagree. The number or % of post-Bruen approvals should be higher now that GC isn’t required nor provides the easy, subjective “no” that it has in the past for “may issue” jurisdictions.

If the number or % of approvals post-Bruen is the same as (or fewer than) pre-Bruen, it would indicate that a jurisdiction has simply substituted or invented a different subjective reason to not issue. This is precisely what Bonta advocated in his post-Bruen memo (hardcore focus on subjective GMC criteria and judgement) isn’t it?

Pre- vs post- issuance numbers and approval rates (excluding DOJ/firearms background failures) are probably the most objective and quantifiable measure of whether anything has changed at the IA level and whether there is at least some movement towards an objective, shall issue regime.

The fact that the Sheriff is dodging the reporters and refusing to provide this data is the story now. It's not about CCWs (which a lot of Contra Costa voters don't care about, or are hostile to), it's about the transparency required of good governance.

[Jason95357]

Originally Posted by jackharper

And this appears to be a clear violation of Penal Code 26205. So, now my blown mind stops at "does the Sheriff have an obligation to comply? If yes, then what is the remedy? If the answer is no, then why?

At this point, PC 26205 is a merely a suggestion and has (always?) been ignored, even by pro-2A IAs. It's never been enforced, there is no teeth behind it. There is nothing the common citizen can do to enforce PC26205.