CRPA letter to Alameda sheriff over bad policy on CCW

[hermosabeach]

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

[9Cal_OC]

One can hope the new sheriff complies.

[SilveradoColt21]

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

[Drivedabizness]

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

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

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

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

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

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

What flaws?

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

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

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

What flaws?

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

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

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

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

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

[G-forceJunkie]

That letter is already in the trash can.

[Paladin]

One week down, one to go!

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Paladin

One week down, one to go!

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

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

One week down, one to go!

From the letter (emphasis added):

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

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

[NateTheNewbie]

this letter is my happy place.

[Drivedabizness]

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

[NateTheNewbie]

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

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by NateTheNewbie

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

Thank you.

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

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Thank you.

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

^^^ MAKES SENSE ^^^

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

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

Just like USSC finally did nationally with Bruen.

[Drivedabizness]

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

[Drivedabizness]

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

Can someone PLEASE confirm:

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

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

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

[NateTheNewbie]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

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

Can someone PLEASE confirm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sputnik]

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

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Sputnik

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

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

[Paladin]

[SilveradoColt21]

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

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

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

I say give it

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

I say give it

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

[Raiderh20boy]

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

[Vinnie Boombatz]

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

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by Vinnie Boombatz

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

[Vinnie Boombatz]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

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

[Paladin]

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

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

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by Paladin

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

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

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

[pacrat]

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


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

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

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

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

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

link to letter;

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

[SilveradoColt21]

Originally Posted by pacrat

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


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



link to letter;

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

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

[Hamsterman]

Originally Posted by SilveradoColt21

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

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

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

[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 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.

[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.

[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.