CCW Denied in Placer County

[DolphinFan]

Mk2dave,
I am capable of filing and representing myself. Others maybe not.
My point is the law gives you rights.
It also limits governments actions.
Under the 10th Amendment states have no right to regulate the 2A.
They MAY designate sensitive places based on THT 1790-1869.
They may ONLY deny the right to carry in totality to prohibited people.
Read the DECISION over and over again and show me where it says we need permission to exercise the right?
I’d doesn’t.
Just like you can repeat the word democracy, that does not exist in our country’s form of government.

And again for the umteenth time,
Concurring and/or dissenting opinions have no standing and are not law.

Repeat after me:
“ We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a hand- gun for self-defense outside the home.”

Say it over and over until you understand IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

If your unwilling to defend it then shame on you.

“Please mr/ms IA, give me permission to exercise my inalienable enumerated right”

It doesn’t work like that.

[benjamin101677]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

I would put them on notice threat they have an obligation to disclose the specific reason(s) the permit was denied.

I would send a package that included;
1) Heller v DC 2008 and remind them the Second Amendment is an Individual Right to carry a handgun inside the home for self defense.
2) McDonald v Chicago 2012, reminding them that the Second Amendment was incorporated into ALL STATES, and removed the states ability to regulate under the 10th Amendment.
3) NYPRA v Bruen 2022, acknowledged the right to carry a handgun for self defense extended outside the home, and also removed the standard of Levels of Scrutiny with the standard of Text, History and Tradition between 1790-1869.
4) Shuttlesworth v Birmingham Alabama 1969, “When faces with an unconstitutional restriction on his enumerated right the defendant may exercise his right with impunity.”
5) Title 42 section 1983, title 18, Sections 241 & 242, individual and conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law. No Qualified Immunity.
6) California Constitution Article 1 Section 1, deprivation of your inalienable right to self defense and to obtain safety and privacy for the intrusion and the denial.
And every county has an exception to discharging a firearm for self defense or to kill a dangerous predator animal.

It is specifically stated in the Federal constitution, reaffirmed by the highest court in the country, and specifically in the state constitution and inferred within each 58 county codes.

States ONLY have rights under the 10th amendment, “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Second Amendment IS in the constitution, and is prohibited to be Infringed.

Give them 48 hours to issue your permit before you file against them and exercise your right without their permission, as is completely allowed.

You have nothing to lose.

I think your jumping the gun way too soon on this; the OP is going have to give some reasonable time to find out what occurred and what the department found that denied him. If someone goes out and starts going legal with them etc. from the beginning without knowing all the facts that person could end up doing more harm to themselves them good. The OP should contact agency and see if they will tell him what the omitted facts they found were. Maybe if it was something for lack of a better term "stupid" he left off he may could explain and re-apply at a later date. Yet, if he goes all legal on them with threats, etc. he could be burning his future.

If he sues them and it was truly something left out that violated the terms of the CCW application the county will over come in court.

Even, if you could prove that your rights are being violated, etc. in court cases we have pending for other stuff related to firearms etc. some have been pending for years and years.

[mk2dave]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Mk2dave,
I am capable of filing and representing myself. Others maybe not.
My point is the law gives you rights.
It also limits governments actions.
Under the 10th Amendment states have no right to regulate the 2A.
They MAY designate sensitive places based on THT 1790-1869.
They may ONLY deny the right to carry in totality to prohibited people.
Read the DECISION over and over again and show me where it says we need permission to exercise the right?
I’d doesn’t.
Just like you can repeat the word democracy, that does not exist in our country’s form of government.

And again for the umteenth time,
Concurring and/or dissenting opinions have no standing and are not law.

Repeat after me:
“ We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a hand- gun for self-defense outside the home.”

Say it over and over until you understand IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

If your unwilling to defend it then shame on you.

“Please mr/ms IA, give me permission to exercise my inalienable enumerated right”

It doesn’t work like that.

And my point is that most people who aren't lawyers aren't equipped to argue a case in Federal court. Like 99.9% of the people. I'd be curious to see the proof that you can. It's even worse advice to give someone else.

If you can, congrats, you are the .1% (and I think statistically that is generous). In a vast majority of cases, a layman taking this to court would lose, and I fail to see how losing a case like this benefits the community. In fact, I think the DOJ would be ECSTATIC if someone represented themselves in a case like this. They'd love to score a win without actually having to argue the law. I say this because...

I agree that the law is on your side.

I disagree that the OP should file the case themselves.

Just because you're right doesn't mean you shouldn't also be smart. And that means stacking the odds in your favor. If you decide to take this to court, find someone that knows what they are doing. Find someone that has done it before. Find a lawyer.

If you're willing to risk losing a court case like this because you are unprepared, ill equipped, and over confident ... shame on you.

[SkyHawk]

Not even real and very very good lawyers represent themselves in court. An amateur Pro Se litigant has no chance against a phalanx of government funded lawyers. Sure, anyone can file such a suit, but I'd sooner go flush my $402 down the toilet and call it a win before I tried to prosecute one myself.

[ACfixer]

Yeah sure, sue the sheriff. Show that mofo you mean business!

Enjoy your new collection of weekly traffic and parking tickets.

[Wildcat19]

Use your moolaa to move out of CA! Try AZ - you can carry without a permit. And it's close to CA.

Why subject yourself to little tyrants that don't care about your right to life. Good luck.

[Kurgan]

I would take any advice that you immediately go scorched earth and address this with the "muh rights" approach with a grain of salt.

Maybe have a conversation with the issuing agency and see if you can clear up the issue prior to going full potato.

Never start out with full potato.

[NorCalBusa]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Not even real and very very good lawyers represent themselves in court. An amateur Pro Se litigant has no chance against a phalanx of government funded lawyers. Sure, anyone can file such a suit, but I'd sooner go flush my $402 down the toilet and call it a win before I tried to prosecute one myself.

You'd get more benefit if you burned it in the driveway to keep your hands warm.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by ACfixer

I hope you get it squared up OP, like I said unless you are prohibited from owning a gun, you should be able to carry that gun. I've said that a few times now. I am not against you, you can hate me for telling you this stuff, that's fine, but you started the thread and I am just offering my take. And look, I am not the only person who sees this, about three other members commented on it to varying degrees... So ignore it, deny it, or listen up a little and understand we are trying to help.

You come off as really defensive and confrontational, just telling you how it appears to someone you don't know and is reading your thread. You got lawsuits going on, traffic tickets, job suspensions, confrontations with the boss, weed use, and you didn't give the guy a square answer when he asked you about your job suspension which isn't a suspension... you got fired... and now you are going to sue them too. You wrote the stuff, not me.

You have to understand "may-issue". People shoot people over stuff like losing jobs for what they feel are unfair reasons, it happens all the time. You got a cop interviewing you that picks up on the same vibe as I did and you can't give him a clear explanation of your current job situation, well it's a red flag to him because most people are really in tune with their current employment status whether the care about the job or not.

Good luck.

Of course I'm going to begin litigation now. Had their job position not caused me problems beyond my work environment I had no intention to. They actually do owe me money for sick time I was never granted and for the false suspension that wad actually a firing just so they could hold my money longer than they were legally allowed to. It is my right to litigate and I'll put them on notice. I'll at least get the money back that was wasted on the CCW.

I'm not in-tune with my employment status at a job I'm planning to quit. I believe I even told the Sheriff that I was intending to quit soon. I'll post the email if you want to look at how it was structured. I had actually seen the 2nd email first because he had messed up and not given a day. So I may not have even read any of the email before being interviewed by the Sheriff 🤷*♂️

At the time my employment status was that I would still have 2 full time jobs regardless of whether or not I lost that job. That's why I didn't care. And it was my lowest paying job, the job I had to put up with the most bs and the job where a renegade supervisor was getting multiple people fired for his promotions.

But he didn't ask that. He asked why I got suspended. I told him my best guess was a disagreement with my supervisor but at the time I wasn't sure. And that was the truth. I could have lied and said it was because I ****ed the supervisors sister and so he was trying to jam me up. Maybe that would have gone over better.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by mk2dave

I feel like we are flirting with the practical vs theoretical. In essence, how to best play the game under current rules vs what should those rules be.

Federal lawsuit without a lawyer? Good luck. In fact, I think this tact would be detrimental to the very purpose that we want to advance. You will lose based on procedure or administrative before you step into the courtroom since you haven't done this before, and the CCW case known as DolphinFan v LEO will be lost not due to the law but because you think lawyers are superfluous. Well done.

Anytime you consider action that effects others, we must do so diligently and with purpose. This means setting yourself up for success by stacking odds into your favor. Not just giving it a go because someone on the internet said I didn't need a lawyer. When you consider your actions effect the community, 100k seems CHEAP.

Theoretical action should mean deliberate and intentional actions. So should your practical steps in your specific situation. You've determined what the investigator has issues with. This is a critical step because there were several options. Present your side in the most logical and understandable way. Avoid BS and shades of the truth.

100k is cheap. I make between 80-150k per year right now, depending on how much I want to show up to do basically nothing, exercise, read, watch YouTube videos and socialize, etc. The gig is great. But I actually do know some of the procedures. I was planning on representing myself in my own case against a fraudster but realized that the job I was working at the time gave me little room for that. I would have never been able to respond to the requests, wait in line at the courthouse and do other lawyerlike things. I would have been toast and I knew it. Lawyers are overpriced but if you have the mindset to grind it out and can't wait in line, get one.

I would actually feel comfortable in this case but for at least the initial process I would hire a lawyer. There are also partial representation options. Either way, I don't think I'll need one for this at the moment. It's too bad I'm not all that familiar with this particular aspect but if I hired one now I would probably be up to speed by the time it reaches the courthouse.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by Kurgan

I would take any advice that you immediately go scorched earth and address this with the "muh rights" approach with a grain of salt.

Maybe have a conversation with the issuing agency and see if you can clear up the issue prior to going full potato.

Never start out with full potato.

I had a conversation with the agency. I wad notified that my only option was appeal and that she had no power to change any decisions made by the department.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by jerkface38

I had a conversation with the agency. I wad notified that my only option was appeal and that she had no power to change any decisions made by the department.

Fourth time and I’m out.

Write the appeal.

[Chewy65]

Who is "she" and to whom did she say your only option is to appeal? Is this the sheriff of your county, the individual to whom the state has authorized to issue licenses; not the department but her. I am sorry if this can all be gleaned from above.

[DolphinFan]

So you have no right to carry?
You have to appeal to the State/County to exercise a right just reinforced by the Supreme Court?
So you have to ask permission again after being denied, by the same entity that denied you?

Does any of that sound right to you?

Like I said from the beginning, sue them in federal court for relief under NYPRA v Bruen.
If you can’t file and/or represent yourself, then get an attorney, get added to an already existing as a plaintiff.

Hey after they deny you a second time, maybe 3 times a charm 🤣.

You have been denied your right the next step is to have a court, a Federal Court, hear the case.

You will win, so don’t forget to ask for punitive damages in addition to the permit.

And in the meantime, exercise your right with impurity. 👍

The U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

So you have no right to carry?
You have to appeal to the State/County to exercise a right just reinforced by the Supreme Court?
So you have to ask permission again after being denied, by the same entity that denied you?

Does any of that sound right to you?

Like I said from the beginning, sue them in federal court for relief under NYPRA v Bruen.
If you can’t file and/or represent yourself, then get an attorney, get added to an already existing as a plaintiff.

Hey after they deny you a second time, maybe 3 times a charm 🤣.

You have been denied your right the next step is to have a court, a Federal Court, hear the case.

You will win, so don’t forget to ask for punitive damages in addition to the permit.

And in the meantime, exercise your right with impurity. 👍

The U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

I'm going to go through the appeals process first. I know it's probably dead in the water but I do have an ex-police officer who is willing to write me a recommendation. If I can't get it with that then I don't think there's really anything I could have done. He wrote me a very solid recommendation. Now I'm working on my appeal which I have until the 10th to turn it in.

I plan on turning it in by Thursday if everything goes well enough. I don't have entirely too many options and I don't want to afford an attorney right now as I'm planning to buy a house and I already am paying one attorney a boatload.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Who is "she" and to whom did she say your only option is to appeal? Is this the sheriff of your county, the individual to whom the state has authorized to issue licenses; not the department but her. I am sorry if this can all be gleaned from above.

When I call the agency she is who answered. I never got her name or I don't remember it but I think it's pretty irrelevant since she has no power either way. She was nice enough to tell me why I was denied when apparently they don't even have to tell me. I would consider her a representative of the agency but not someone with any authority.

[mk2dave]

So why were you denied?

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by mk2dave

So why were you denied?

I've said it multiple times already but I'll say it again. I was denied because the interviewer felt like I was lying about why I was suspended from work.

I told him it was a disagreement with my supervisor but that I wasn't certain. There were multiple disagreements with this supervisor and I never read the entire email from that job before the interview and so I really wasn't certain. Obviously I read it after the interview. It basically said I did bad reports that were unprofessional. But I didn't have that information at the time. I was planning on quitting the job and didn't care about them. I even informed the officer that I was planning to quit.

So nothing I said was a lie. I only had incomplete information. That isn't a crime. I'm not required to read an email from anybody. They're lucky I even read the 3 lines I chose to read inatead of deleting it outright.

Regardless, I'm going to take in my appeal. Probably cooked. Doesn't matter. I'm better at writing than speaking anyway. I have a recommendation from a former police officer which is better than nothing. I just wish I could turn it in on Monday but I only have until Saturday and they're closed on Saturday. So I'm going to be writing and rewriting all night before work. I would rather mail it in but it has to actually arrive by Saturday and they're closed so yeah. And they don't answer the phone. Fun fun lol

[faris1984]

You have too much stuff going on, traffic ticket, weed, restraining order, fired from the job and more. Many people got denied just because traffic tickets. You have had guns drawn on you multiple times 🤔 you are hanging out in the wrong places.

[mk2dave]

Originally Posted by jerkface38

I've said it multiple times already but I'll say it again. I was denied because the interviewer felt like I was lying about why I was suspended from work.

I told him it was a disagreement with my supervisor but that I wasn't certain. There were multiple disagreements with this supervisor and I never read the entire email from that job before the interview and so I really wasn't certain. Obviously I read it after the interview. It basically said I did bad reports that were unprofessional. But I didn't have that information at the time. I was planning on quitting the job and didn't care about them. I even informed the officer that I was planning to quit.

So nothing I said was a lie. I only had incomplete information. That isn't a crime. I'm not required to read an email from anybody. They're lucky I even read the 3 lines I chose to read inatead of deleting it outright.

Regardless, I'm going to take in my appeal. Probably cooked. Doesn't matter. I'm better at writing than speaking anyway. I have a recommendation from a former police officer which is better than nothing. I just wish I could turn it in on Monday but I only have until Saturday and they're closed on Saturday. So I'm going to be writing and rewriting all night before work. I would rather mail it in but it has to actually arrive by Saturday and they're closed so yeah. And they don't answer the phone. Fun fun lol

From what I reviewed, you suggested that this mightbe the case. As far as I know, this is the first time it was confirmed. Although I only looked back to when you said you could represent yourself in a lawsuit.

As far as being obligated to read emails, you are right. There is not legal obligation. One thing that the investigators might be looking for, though, is stability and consistency. This is where improvements can be made. People communicating with you (via email) which you then kinda read/kinda don't, and then justify with "I'm about to quit anyways..." makes it seem like you have very little respect or awareness.

I am not justifying their position, saying it's right, or even saying I'm reading this correctly. What I am saying is that given the reality of the uphill battle, I am not convinced you are presenting your case in the best light. But I am only basing this on what I can read.

[ACfixer]

Originally Posted by jerkface38

I'm going to go through the appeals process first. I know it's probably dead in the water but I do have an ex-police officer who is willing to write me a recommendation.

BFD. They have a current police officer right in their own department in charge of deciding if you get a CCW that feels otherwise.

You need to clean up your schtick and apply next year or whatever. Try to come across as a job-holding, law abiding citizen that doesn't smoke weed and sue everyone. Current registration, no outstanding court cases, and a clear recollection of any recent negative events in your life... Just my 2 cents.

Or move to a state that doesn't hold petty crap against you and follows the constitution. You're not going to find that in California.

[Anthony S]

My head is spinning after reading all of this. OP definitely seems to have a history of "bad luck" shall we say. It sounds like to me they used this reason as a character reference. And the fact that your answers didnt match up probably makes them question what else my not be correct on your application. I would appeal for sure but I have to ask, did you mention you were in the middle of a law suit on your application? I was asked on my application which is why I asked.

[Pranqster]

I wouldn't even give him a fishing permit. He doesnt seem stable, OR forthcoming. To be honest, I don't believe that he didn't read the email, not for a second.

[Dvrjon]

I’m presuming, by the OP’s silence, the appeal wasn’t filed.

10 Dec was the deadline, and the IA wouldn’t have spent a lot of time on it…it’s an up-or-down vote.

If it had been and was approved, we’d hear about it.

If it had been denied we’d really have heard about it.

Moving on.