CCW Denied in Placer County

[jerkface38]

Hey everyone, I just received a call from the automated system at the Sheriff's Department. At first I thought it was a fake call because it seemed odd and came from a number that looks like a scam number. It told me to check my email and when I did this is what I had received:


"This letter is to advise you that your application for issue/renewal of a concealed handgun permit has been denied.

Your application for a concealed handgun permit has been 'denied' for the following reasons:

Withheld/False Info on Application §26180 PC

You may appeal this denial by filing a written petition within 30 days of this notice with the Administrative Captain of the Placer County Sheriff's Office at the Auburn Justice Center, 2929 Richardson Dr. Auburn, CA 95603. Your processing and convenience fees are not refundable."

Now I firmly disagree with this but they didn't really give me much information here. I'm not sure how to dispute something that I only have a general outline of. I didn't withhold any information or lie about anything during the entire process. Maybe I got a date wrong from something that happened 3 to 5 years ago but as far as I'm aware I told the truth on everything. I wish they would have told me what I supposedly lied about so that I could confront them about it during the appeal. I guess I could call the number which I tried to do but they said leave a message and they will get back. By the way I've left messages before and they never get back.

So how do I go about getting the information that I supposedly withheld or lied about? I'm sure it's something really small like I got a year wrong or a day wrong on something that happened three or five years ago or maybe even 10 years ago. How is up front and honest about everything including my restraining order that I had when I was in my teenage years. Maybe I was wrong and said I was 14 when I was actually 15 because it was so long ago and I don't have any records of what that was actually about. Maybe I was wrong on the cause although it was from my PoV and I remember exactly what I did to get it and so I told the truth. Or maybe it was from a ticket that I don't remember receiving but they didn't actually go too far into that and only ask for the most recent ones which at the time I had none but I ended up getting a red light ticket right after the interview so I'm wondering if they saw that as me lying.

I actually feel kind of insulted at this point but I want to still try to obtain my CCW since I already went through the course. I don't even have any desire to use it other than the fact that it's easier to drive around with my gun to my job sites and is less likely to get me shot if I do get pulled over. I'd probably bring it with me camping too but I've been fine so far without it although you never know. I also frequent areas in bad neighborhoods due to many of my friends living in those neighborhoods and so I guess I also wanted some peace of mind when I was there considering I've had guns pulled on me multiple times throughout my life and I had nothing to defend myself with.

This whole process is ridiculous and I can see why people move to States like Texas in order to obtain the rights there supposed to have from the get-go.

[NYT]

setup an appointment by phone or go down to the office and setup an appointment. youll never know until you have a 1 on 1 with the ccw group.

[Oceanbob]

Yeah. Call and leave a message. Be polite, ask the questions. Good luck.

Maybe a restraining order when you were a teenager set off a red flag?

[SharedShots]

OP, you're starting to get it.

Be very careful how you proceed because it is very easy to get caught up in a fishing expedition. I'll explain:

Note the wording: "Withheld/False Info on Application §26180 PC"

That is an accusation no matter how it's spun. The notice didn't say there appears to be a discrepancy and then ask you to provide additional information (citing the issue). It flat out says you did something. Anyone who bothers to value their integrity would be insulted; there is no need to word the notice in that way.

When you make contact to ask do not start giving out any information you haven't already unless the focus is very clear and to the point of exactly what information they think (not know) is missing or incorrect (false).

Note the word "withheld". That is another point. Withheld means you knew and did not disclose and therefore implies intent. For example, there is a big difference between knowing something and not disclosing it and not knowing something (as in having forgotten) and just not writing it down. See how that works? It doesn't matter what, anyone who says they have a perfect memory is putting out BS. You could have forgotten a date or put the wrong one down, let anyone tell you they have in their memory every date of everything thing they've ever done and they are lying.

So you go in and ask questions, with courtesy of course but not defensive or being intimidated. THe reason you don't start giving out yet more information is that if you do and it's in response to an open ended question such as:

"Did you _____________ in 2003" or something like "Between this date and that, were there any LE contacts?" and then you go on to say something not relevant, you are toast.

Do not think anyone is working toward your best interest. THey aren't your enemy by any means but they aren't there trying to help you get that CCW either or the notice you got wouldn't be worded like it was. If it was nothing then nothing can be cleared up with telling you what was found to be withheld or falsely reported without giving exact details, some thing like "The driving record you submitted is incomplete". See, that doesn't say what you left out but it provides focus to you. There is a reason why that doesn't happen.

Seriously, some people will say call. That is the worst thing you can do. People who do it for a living know how to control conversations. Put us in a room together and you'll be turned around and giving me your life story whether you know it or not. Write a good letter asking for specifics. In this way you can consider how to answer, if you should answer or whatever. In a phone call you can be asked anything and even if you choose not to answer, you've just created a further problem for yourself. Not answering a question becomes nothing more than something like a smell of a rabbit to a hound. That is why often, it's best to ask for information in writing. That removes follow verbal questions while you are on a phone call and the predicament you can find yourself in within seconds.

You are in a zone where something you say can and will be used to your disadvantage. Don't get me wrong, if your goal is to get that CCW, you need to go through the process but that doesn't mean grovel, be intimidated or beg. They said you did something wrong because withholding information or providing false information is wrong. Don't think oh, this is no big deal because you have no idea until you find out.

If you go the (in IMHO) this haphazardly and call, never ever answer a question where there is no room for clarification. When asked, a preface such as "to the best of my recollection........" No one can then accuse you of knowing something for certain since no one can prove what you remember (at least it's not very easy to do).

This might be cleared up easily and without confrontation (you don't want that) but your contact will be with LE, not some clerk with no LE authority. Treat it what way, respectfully, courteously and cooperatively ( so long as you do not compromise yourself). If any contact appears to be going in a different direct, do yourself a big favor and stop to contact, you don't have to say anything. If there is even a hint of a fishing expedition (open ended questions, asking you if you know things other than about yourself) stop, its the danger zone. Then seek professional legal advice (yes, this is where lawyers have great value).

This could all be very simple, keep it that way.

This is not legal advice, shouldn't be considered such in any way, it's my opinion and up theirs to anyone (with twinkles in their eyes) saying otherwise. If you are unsure of anything, it is often far better for you to seek professional legal advice than listen to anyone on the Internet (including me) or to go it alone.




.

[jerkface38]

It could be any number of things. They could even be from when I used weed 3 ot 4 years ago. I didn't have an exact time frame since I wasn't really keeping track of when I use it last. I fixed the problem I used it for and quit. Could be from a car crash, a ticket I wasn't aware of although I think on my license renewal it would have popped up. It could be from the question where they asked if I was recently suspended or fired from a job and I replied yes I was suspended but it turns out that I was actually fired from said job and I was told after a week. So it could be that, I have no idea. And I was fired for who knows what I didn't even review all the information in the email I just said I'd be there at the meeting that never happened. I'll just call and leave a message.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by thethreegs

Cover all bases. Do a California DMV check and see what pulls up.

It could be something as simple as something lost in translation. You disclosed a restraining order to the interviewing officer, but that wasn't written or conveyed in a manner where the next cog in the machine who signs off to proceed to training (this portion is the most stringent, most important, and most disconnected from the interview) finds an irregularity and you end up getting screwed. This has been documented numerous times. I am not in Placer County, but assuming it runs similarly to mine.

Sorry to hear you are going through this, CCW in California is an extremely frustrating process. Disclosing things and not remembering the exact year is likely not the problem. It's either something lost in translation (error on their side) or you did not disclose something that you legitimately did not remember.

There are a lot of things in life that I don't remember. My friend just recently brought up something to me that I had completely forgotten about and forgot about all over again. It was something important but not important enough for me to remember it for the rest of my life. It was a nice memory and I'm glad I shared it but I move on quickly. I don't try to hang up on things that are in the past and I don't focus on them much. After about 6 months if I don't deem it a major important step in my life I'm probably going to forget it. A traffic ticket from 10 years ago? I've probably forgotten about it. If I'm asked a question such as how many I've had in my lifetime I can honestly say I don't know but it's between one and five.

I honestly don't think it's anything in my DMV history based on the questions I was asked. I'm going to ask them to clarify what they think I was being dishonest about. I actually recently had a DMV check for my job maybe 6 months ago and nothing came up on their end so I'm pretty positive it doesn't have anything to do with that. I'm not a mind reader though and I think the only thing I can do at this point is either write a letter which won't make it there very fast and definitely won't be reviewed within 30 days or call them and have them call me back which will get a much faster response and hopefully they'll give me the information I need to properly appeal it.

[Sam .223]

When I applied I was told that I didn't include some info, they asked about a round about time period and hinted it was a traffic related incident. I remembered at that point, apologized and told them I had forgotten about it, once I cleared that up they processed everything and I was approved. I was also told during that time that some stuff that is suppose to fall off your record after a certain amount of time doesn't actually go away and will come up in the FBI check, so if you omitted something because it was suppose to be off your record it may have come back in the background check.

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by jerkface38

"This letter is to advise you that your application for issue/renewal of a concealed handgun permit has been denied.

Your application for a concealed handgun permit has been 'denied' for the following reasons:

Withheld/False Info on Application §26180 PC

You may appeal this denial by filing a written petition within 30 days of this notice with the Administrative Captain of the Placer County Sheriff's Office at the Auburn Justice Center, 2929 Richardson Dr. Auburn, CA 95603. Your processing and convenience fees are not refundable."

Penal Code 26180
(a) Any person who files an application required by Section 26175 knowing that any statement contained therein is false is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Any person who knowingly makes a false statement on the application regarding any of the following is guilty of a felony:
(1) The denial or revocation of a license, or the denial of an amendment to a license, issued pursuant to this article.
(2) A criminal conviction.
(3) A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(4) The use of a controlled substance.
(5) A dishonorable discharge from military service.
(6) A commitment to a mental institution.
(7) A renunciation of United States citizenship.

[mk2dave]

It sounds like they cut and paste a standard response, and probably 90% of applicants know what they were dishonest about. You don't. This wasn't personal, in fact it appears specifically not so, so there is no reason to be insulted.

For me, the driving record was the easiest thing to get tripped on. I printed out the DMV driving record specifically for this instance so I could defend information I provided. You might want to do the same to A) that the info you presented was reasonably accurate, and B) so you can effectively address other infractions they say you might have.

After you request an appeal, they will need to schedule the appeal. When they attempt to schedule, this would be the time to politely request what they believe you were dishonest about. I'd say something like "I dont want to waste LEO's time by not being prepared. So this can be avoided, what is it that the investigator thought was dishonest?"

The investigator questioned me about a ticket I supposedly got while deployed oversees. This wasn't an obstacle for me, but it's apparent that the investigator's info isn't always 100% correct.

Good luck!

[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.

[Quiet]

Penal Code 26205
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.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by thethreegs

While I agree with your sentiment, the police/government/the system/etc. don't care. They specifically want you to never carry. You are supposed to present all relevant information or it's an easy DQ for them to give. Make it hard for them to DQ you. If you are serious about obtaining your California CCW, go the extra mile. Pay the $2 DMV check and do your own complete background check so you have the dates of everything and also something you can present to them. Due diligence is your own ammunition you can use to destroy your enemies that want to see you fail.

So I think I may have figured out what caused the disqualification. Apparently I had a red light ticket from one of the traffic cameras while I was doing Patrol for the other company. I actually got the notice in the mail probably in either September or October which is a while after the interview but apparently the ticket was dated for about a week or two prior to the interview. I thought for sure the ticket was dated a few days after the interview but apparently it was in June. I think the reason I thought it was 4th of July is because people around that area were constantly lighting off fireworks and a few times they actually went off right next to me while I was driving.

So if I have to take a wild guess I would say that is the reason although I would have to find out when my interview date was just to be sure. It's kind of ridiculous that they couldn't just ask me about this considering it was a ticket from a camera and not from an actual officer which means that there's no way I would know I got one until it comes in the mail unless I thought a flash of light was anything significant at the time which it wasn't because fireworks were going off left and right 24 hours a day.

[NorCalBusa]

I'd go back over everything I submitted, go to DMV's website and download any ticket convictions or accidents, cross every T and dot every "i". Have utter confidence in everything you wrote - or go find out why you don't & fix the lack of information. Leave nothing with any "foggy or unsure" memory- lock it in and get it written down, organized either chronologically or by type of event- whatever works so you can go to immediately if brought up. There are bound to be things you can't recall- so put a place-marker with what you do recall. Omit nothing, even making out with Jennifer in the back seat in '79.

Only then make your follow up appointment and bring your indexed 3-ring binder about your life. Find the tab is they ask about something and read your exact notes- show them you give a crap and recorded details.

Be articulate, a gentleman and cooperative. If that all fails either send them a box of iPads (Laurie Smith has some for sale now) or ask them what the best way to redeem yourself is. Thank them and leave, talk think out loud there. G/L

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by jerkface38

So I think I may have figured out what caused the disqualification. Apparently I had a red light ticket from one of the traffic cameras while I was doing Patrol for the other company. I actually got the notice in the mail probably in either September or October which is a while after the interview but apparently the ticket was dated for about a week or two prior to the interview. I thought for sure the ticket was dated a few days after the interview but apparently it was in June. I think the reason I thought it was 4th of July is because people around that area were constantly lighting off fireworks and a few times they actually went off right next to me while I was driving.

So if I have to take a wild guess I would say that is the reason although I would have to find out when my interview date was just to be sure. It's kind of ridiculous that they couldn't just ask me about this considering it was a ticket from a camera and not from an actual officer which means that there's no way I would know I got one until it comes in the mail unless I thought a flash of light was anything significant at the time which it wasn't because fireworks were going off left and right 24 hours a day.

You hit the nail on the head there. The explanation given to you was that there was witheld/false information on your application, but if you yet know that you were being cited based on the photo camera, there is no way you could have intended to withold said information. If this is the issue, just be sure that you didn't know about it before the interview.

Whatever you do, be polite and respectful.

[SharedShots]

It is the presumption of guilt.

There are many ways to contact someone without presuming guilt. While it may be that many people denied are so rightfully (considering how its done in CA) there is no reason to then assume everyone who left something off the application or mistakenly put a wrong date on an item is guilty.

The penal code says what a person is guilty of if they've done it and through due process have been convicted. In this case and others, there isn't even an arrest or detainment yet, the presumption of guilt is loud and clear.

It doesn't have to be that way and serves only to reinforce the reverse presumption that LE in this specific process exists to screw you. Sometimes, words speak louder than actions.

Will the OP get through the process with a favorable view of the process and those implementing it or see it as something else? Only the OP can say and IMHO, the OP has already said in enough detail far more than they should have.

There is a reason while distrust and question are created, this is one example. The denial didn't need to be one as it imposed a penalty with the only way to avoid it is by an appeal. Instead, prior to the denial, there is an opportunity to contact the applicant, ask for clarification and not start with the "guess what I have in my hand?" routine.

I completely agree, be polite, courteous and respectful but shouldn't that be a two street or is it asking too much not the be treated as a criminal in the absence of a trial resulting in a conviction?

OP, assume nothing.



.

[tawadc95]

Your user name here might be part of the problem.

[ACfixer]

Just an observation here OP, and please understand that i feel if you aren't a violent felon you should be able to carry.

You seem to have forgotten about a lot of stuff. Weed use, tickets, accidents, and more... within the last decade. Fireworks in the intersection being mistaken for red light cameras? Crap I live where real fireworks are common and legal and I never seem them going off in the city intersections, and I know where every red light camera is.

I mean nothing by this, except to an outsider that doesn't know you... It sounds like a bunch of excuses and I am betting that an agency tasked with letting you carry in CA it looks the same. Personally I would get a record of all the stuff you've forgotten about before you re-apply. Tighten up your look, you live in a may-issue state which pretty much means "may not" as you found out.

Just one other parting note to put this in perspective from my POV and perhaps yours. I had DUI's, drug possession, drug use, assault, and so many tickets and FTA's that I cannot begin to count in my younger days. I had to register as a drug user for three years (meth) and did six months in the county jail where I applied for my CCW. Of course there were things I could not remember every detail of, but I was 1000% forthcoming with all that, every speck, even telling them about things they didn't really know about because I didn't want them to find out later. They gave me a CCW in California without a hiccup.

Since they gave me a CCW easily, it always raises an eyebrow when I hear about a denial and I think you can understand why.

Good luck to you, I hope you get it sorted out.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by jerkface38

Hey everyone, I just received a call from the automated system at the Sheriff's Department. At first I thought it was a fake call because it seemed odd and came from a number that looks like a scam number. It told me to check my email and when I did this is what I had received:


"This letter is to advise you that your application for issue/renewal of a concealed handgun permit has been denied.

Your application for a concealed handgun permit has been 'denied' for the following reasons:

Withheld/False Info on Application §26180 PC

You may appeal this denial by filing a written petition within 30 days of this notice with the Administrative Captain of the Placer County Sheriff's Office at the Auburn Justice Center, 2929 Richardson Dr. Auburn, CA 95603. Your processing and convenience fees are not refundable."

Now I firmly disagree with this but they didn't really give me much information here. I'm not sure how to dispute something that I only have a general outline of. I didn't withhold any information or lie about anything during the entire process.

So how do I go about getting the information that I supposedly withheld or lied about?

You write the letter to the Captain and state that, to your knowledge, you did not withhold or provide false information at any time during this process.

Because of this, you ask for a reconsideration interview to clear up whatever confusion is blocking this action.

Follow the process.

Don’t threaten to sue. Don’t state you’ll carry without a permit.

This is a PITA, but right now it is the given path. Use it. You may learn something about yourself.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

You write the letter to the Captain and state that, to your knowledge, you did not withhold or provide false information at any time during this process.

Because of this, you ask for a reconsideration interview to clear up whatever confusion is blocking this action.

Follow the process.

Don’t threaten to sue. Don’t state you’ll carry without a permit.

This is a PITA, but right now it is the given path. Use it. You may learn something about yourself.

I would never threaten to sue, I would simply do it. The only time I would tell someone I'm suing them as if I was trying to give them a chance to do something when they are clearly in the wrong. I'm actually suing someone already so I don't think adding another lawsuit would be that big of a deal for me but I'm not really interested in doing it.

As for carrying without a permit I didn't intend to do that either. I don't even think I would carry even after getting the permit but there are a select few situations in which I might so I wanted it for those such as when I go camping or somewhere else like when I visit people I know who live in the ghetto and anything can happen. I've never actually had a situation other than one or two times where I thought it would have been useful to be carrying.

I'm generally a peaceful person. I don't like to get into fights, I don't like starting **** but I do like standing up for myself. And when I stand up for myself I have pretty much always been called an *******. And I am an ******* on occasion but if I'm an ******* to someone, I can confidently say that they probably deserve it.

So I did call them and I asked for the reason. They were actually forthcoming and told me that they felt that I was not being truthful or forthcoming when he had asked me why I was suspended from my job. I did not expect this as a question and had not thoroughly read the email prior to the interview. I no longer even cared about this company to be quite honest. I did reply to the email as I did skim it and told them that I could not be there on Monday but I can be there on Friday or Thursday or something I don't even remember.

The reason I didn't read the email was because I was planning on quitting on the day of the meeting anyway. I was tired of the supervisor trying to jam me up and he was really starting to piss me off which is actually hard to do. He actually squared up with me one day and I almost beat him up but I restrained myself. I was actually insulted when he tried to claim that he smelled alcohol on my breath when I don't even drink very often and I had not drank for almost a month prior to that. I don't even drink very often.

So after the interview I did actually thoroughly read the email and found out the exact reason why. I figured it was one of three reasons but I didn't want to confidently say it was one reason and be completely wrong about why. The reason ended up being for the video reports I sent in basically talking **** about the supervisor any question. They had actually written me up prior to this but I couldn't give a reason for that either because they never formally gave me a ride up and just sent me an email telling me to acknowledge the write-up.

So anyways that was the reason I got denied. Something totally unrelated to actually carrying a firearm and to be honest I find it completely irrelevant. All of the people I know who got a CCW were never asked that question. So I was actually completely unprepared for it. And apparently I wasn't actually suspended as the email stated but I was fired which irritates me because that means they withheld my check for over a week when they are supposed to deliver it in 48 hours. I wasn't going to actually Jam this company up and sue them but now I'm going to hire my past lawyer for employment grievances over this. I'm pretty much guaranteed $500 which is about what I've spent through this whole ridiculous process.

[ACfixer]

Originally Posted by jerkface38

I would never threaten to sue, I would simply do it. The only time I would tell someone I'm suing them as if I was trying to give them a chance to do something when they are clearly in the wrong. I'm actually suing someone already so I don't think adding another lawsuit would be that big of a deal for me but I'm not really interested in doing it.


I'm generally a peaceful person. I don't like to get into fights, I don't like starting **** but I do like standing up for myself. And when I stand up for myself I have pretty much always been called an *******. And I am an ******* on occasion but if I'm an ******* to someone, I can confidently say that they probably deserve it.

So I did call them and I asked for the reason. They were actually forthcoming and told me that they felt that I was not being truthful or forthcoming when he had asked me why I was suspended from my job. I did not expect this as a question and had not thoroughly read the email prior to the interview. I no longer even cared about this company to be quite honest. I did reply to the email as I did skim it and told them that I could not be there on Monday but I can be there on Friday or Thursday or something I don't even remember.

The reason I didn't read the email was because I was planning on quitting on the day of the meeting anyway. I was tired of the supervisor trying to jam me up and he was really starting to piss me off which is actually hard to do. He actually squared up with me one day and I almost beat him up but I restrained myself. I was actually insulted when he tried to claim that he smelled alcohol on my breath when I don't even drink very often and I had not drank for almost a month prior to that. I don't even drink very often.

So after the interview I did actually thoroughly read the email and found out the exact reason why. I figured it was one of three reasons but I didn't want to confidently say it was one reason and be completely wrong about why. The reason ended up being for the video reports I sent in basically talking **** about the supervisor any question. They had actually written me up prior to this but I couldn't give a reason for that either because they never formally gave me a ride up and just sent me an email telling me to acknowledge the write-up.

I think you've made the reasons for denial pretty clear. You are a walking stack of ongoing problems and excuses.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by jerkface38

I would never threaten to sue, I would simply do it. The only time I would tell someone I'm suing them as if I was trying to give them a chance to do something when they are clearly in the wrong. I'm actually suing someone already so I don't think adding another lawsuit would be that big of a deal for me but I'm not really interested in doing it.

As for carrying without a permit I didn't intend to do that either. I don't even think I would carry even after getting the permit but there are a select few situations in which I might so I wanted it for those such as when I go camping or somewhere else like when I visit people I know who live in the ghetto and anything can happen. I've never actually had a situation other than one or two times where I thought it would have been useful to be carrying.

I'm generally a peaceful person. I don't like to get into fights, I don't like starting **** but I do like standing up for myself. And when I stand up for myself I have pretty much always been called an *******. And I am an ******* on occasion but if I'm an ******* to someone, I can confidently say that they probably deserve it.

So I did call them and I asked for the reason. They were actually forthcoming and told me that they felt that I was not being truthful or forthcoming when he had asked me why I was suspended from my job. I did not expect this as a question and had not thoroughly read the email prior to the interview. I no longer even cared about this company to be quite honest. I did reply to the email as I did skim it and told them that I could not be there on Monday but I can be there on Friday or Thursday or something I don't even remember.

The reason I didn't read the email was because I was planning on quitting on the day of the meeting anyway. I was tired of the supervisor trying to jam me up and he was really starting to piss me off which is actually hard to do. He actually squared up with me one day and I almost beat him up but I restrained myself. I was actually insulted when he tried to claim that he smelled alcohol on my breath when I don't even drink very often and I had not drank for almost a month prior to that. I don't even drink very often.

So after the interview I did actually thoroughly read the email and found out the exact reason why. I figured it was one of three reasons but I didn't want to confidently say it was one reason and be completely wrong about why. The reason ended up being for the video reports I sent in basically talking **** about the supervisor any question. They had actually written me up prior to this but I couldn't give a reason for that either because they never formally gave me a ride up and just sent me an email telling me to acknowledge the write-up.

So anyways that was the reason I got denied. Something totally unrelated to actually carrying a firearm and to be honest I find it completely irrelevant. All of the people I know who got a CCW were never asked that question. So I was actually completely unprepared for it. And apparently I wasn't actually suspended as the email stated but I was fired which irritates me because that means they withheld my check for over a week when they are supposed to deliver it in 48 hours. I wasn't going to actually Jam this company up and sue them but now I'm going to hire my past lawyer for employment grievances over this. I'm pretty much guaranteed $500 which is about what I've spent through this whole ridiculous process.

You now have the reason for denial. You have until December 10 to submit your written appeal to the Captain and clarify any concerns the interview raised in this area.

It will be interesting to see if their appeal process is valid.

[SharedShots]

I think your appeal if you follow through will be denied. The problem isn't what you've done or said, the problem is for a long time there has been a build up to not disagreeing with what someone says but that they shouldn't be able to say it. How often have we heard something like "It's not what you say it's how you say it?" That is because once you can divert the focus away from what is said and instead shine the light on how it was said its easy to control the other person, they have to defend not their ideas but rather their person/persona. Its a typical very left wing tactic but strangely enough, used by everyone including conservatives.

How does this relate to the topic? When a person can be denied something, in this case a CCW which is the only legal avenue open to Californian's who want to carry based on the feelings of another individual, you can see how easily it's not necessarily what you said or did that matters but rather how you said something or if you did something they don't like, despite being within our rights to do so and not illegal that they just don't like it.

That is why I think your appeal is toast. According to what you've said, none of what you said was illegal, it was all about your GMC and the result was you got accused of (the effect) of not being forthcoming/withholding/failing to report and so on. In essence, a fear of what you might do.

Getting fired from a job isn't illegal on the part of the employee yet, it can be justification for denying a CCW. That becomes a punishment or penalty imposed by those who had nothing to do with the employment action.

As things are going, eventually, many people who support or otherwise see validity in the scheme will become exposed to it to their detriment. It's only then that they'll realize how they kept the stove going that boiled the water they've been sitting in the entire time. Don't think that there aren't a lot of people right here who actually believe that a CCW means they are to be more trusted than someone else. They say so openly. They'll use statstics to support the notion that CCW holders are more law abiding or less likely to use a firearm illegally. Yeah, if they compare themselves to criminals but then, any law abiding person can make the same claim.






.

[Dan_Eastvale]

They think this person’s going to shoot instead of beat up those he gets mad at

[DolphinFan]

You cannot be denied an enumerated inalienable right because you were terminated.

Being rude or an asshat isn’t grounds for denying you your rights.

Go back to my post and put them on notice to issue the permit to a non prohibited person or be sued in federal court without immunity under federal law for deprivation of rights.
And show them Shuttlesworth v Birmingham Alabama and the People of California v Diaz, and give them 10 days to issue your permit or be sued in federal court while you exercise your right with impunity as prescribed by law.

And be prepared to serve with the suit. It costs $402 to file.

And if/when more people take the deprivation of rights seriously, we can finally put our civil servants, civil service employees on notice that it won’t be tolerated.
The decision in NYPRA v Bruen said;
“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.”

Yes states MAY permit IF they issue to anyone not prohibited.
They may further restrict carry in sensitive places based on the Text, History and Tradition between 1790-1869.

Other than that they have no authority to deny you.

I’d sue the person who denied, the supervisors, the chief, the department, the city council, the mayor, your assembly member and senator if they conspire to deny your rights.
Let the court figure the rest out after they lawyer up and submit briefs.

The law is in your side.

[Casoobaru]

Originally Posted by ACfixer

They gave me a CCW in California without a hiccup
Since they gave me a CCW easily, it always raises an eyebrow when I hear about a denial and I think you can understand why.

Are you back on the drugs or just trolling?

No offense to you but it makes me sick a x tweaker convicted criminal that was locked up can get a ccw fine while in my areas there are thousands of us who have not so much as a red light ticket and aren't even granted an interview. You are lucky as hell, I'd never move if you plan to keep your ccw.

[ACfixer]

Originally Posted by Casoobaru

Are you back on the drugs or just trolling?

No offense to you but it makes me sick a x tweaker convicted criminal that was locked up can get a ccw fine while in my areas there are thousands of us who have not so much as a red light ticket and aren't even granted an interview. You are lucky as hell, I'd never move if you plan to keep your ccw.

You tell me "no offense to me" then proceed to accuse me of being on drugs or trolling?


Yeah, got a CCW in San Bernardino County. I have one in Arizona, Utah, and a lifetime permit in Tennessee. Here's the thing, in spite of your judgemental attitude, none of my crimes were prohibiting offenses, so I am guessing you don't feel I have a 2A right based on your evaluation.

Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale

They think this person’s going to shoot instead of beat up those he gets mad at

Exactly what I am thinking Dan. I'm not saying it's right to deny him, but in a "may-issue" state I can see why they aren't.

[Casoobaru]

Your comment acting as if anyone in California can get a ccw because you were able to get one under your circumstances and transgressions in the past seemed like trolling, as I consider thats flat out bull. I cut a poor joke meant to be "what are you high man". It seemed stupid and wrong so I said something. Probably should have just been quiet

I said no offense and then listed some the things you yourself were telling us about.

No, i didn't say I think that means you shouldn't have 2a rights. Clearly I don't know the extent of any of it. One of my good friends got into meth as a youngster 20 some years ago and has never had another problem since and become as upstanding and hardworking as any person I know. It's in fact very hard to get a ccw in most of the state and it's not anything to do with anyones past, peoples rights are simply denied no question.

What bothers me is not your situation of being granted a ccw with your past, as its my situation of not even being granted an interview or call back along with many others because our state officials need not abide. I apologize for my first post, I should have worded things differently.

[ACfixer]

Originally Posted by Casoobaru

What bothers me is not your situation of being granted a ccw with your past, as its my situation of not even being granted an interview or call back along with many others because our state officials need not abide. I apologize for my first post, I should have worded things differently.

We're good, apology accepted and allow me to extend my own in return, I edited out the "backside" part. Look I get your point, and I truly sympathize with those of you guys that can't get an interview. Your rights are being violated and you have a right to be angry and frustrated by the process...

My point was just this Casoobaru, I had a past... a long time ago, and I paid for my sins and have been clean for well over three decades now... so let me see if I can word this in friendlier terms as it related to the OP who DID get an interview.

Look through his rolling diatribe of kickingass and taking names and all the stuff he's forgotten about, along with the excuses for each. The only reason I brought my transgressions in was the fact that in spite of my spotted past, they don't generally let that be any kind of deciding factor if you are currently not doing that crap, aren't smoking dope, and don't have any outstanding lawsuits or court cases etc. I'm not saying "moral character" should have anything to do with it but in CA right now it sure gives them a way to pull the weeds and IMO that's just what they've done.

You see how his posts have gone, now imagine how the interview went. Just like Dan said, they probably aren't seeing this guy as someone that looks to de-escalate situations. When you have discretion on who you can issue to, if you issue to some guy that ends up shooting a gas station beggar for nothing other than begging, you have a real problem.

It's may issue - which means may not. Don't get me wrong, I think OP should be able to carry if he's not a felon, end of story. I'm just explaining the "may-not" part from an outsider's perspective.

Originally Posted by SharedShots

How often have we heard something like "It's not what you say it's how you say it?"

How does this relate to the topic? When a person can be denied something, in this case a CCW which is the only legal avenue open to Californian's who want to carry based on the feelings of another individual, you can see how easily it's not necessarily what you said or did that matters but rather how you said something or if you did something they don't like, despite being within our rights to do so and not illegal that they just don't like it.

That is why I think your appeal is toast. According to what you've said, none of what you said was illegal, it was all about your GMC and the result was you got accused of (the effect) of not being forthcoming/withholding/failing to report and so on. In essence, a fear of what you might do.

All that, right there.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by ACfixer

I think you've made the reasons for denial pretty clear. You are a walking stack of ongoing problems and excuses.

Where are the denial and excuses again? If you're going to make accusations like that you should probably back them up with some substance instead of cherry picking what I said to suit whatever agenda it is you're trying to push. He said he smelled alcohol on my breath which was a flat out lie he was just trying to get something on recording of me admitting something that I didn't do which of course I didn't do. The reason he did that was because I shot down everything else he said and then when he turned to his camera off he decided to square up with me and threaten me and tell me he's from San Jose and he used to run with gang members or some bull****. When you come at someone with an attitude like that are you expecting them to not feel threatened in any way or are you thinking this person might do something?

I doubt you've ever experienced this but if you've ever had an ex-girlfriend then you would know when they're talking to you and you just don't care anymore you're not going to remember or you probably won't even understand half of what they're saying because you simply don't care. That was basically the situation here and that I was actually planning on quitting the day I was supposed to show up.

And again, reading your post further where you quoted me and Cherry Picked what I said and put things in bold that you have no idea what you're even talking about to try to make me look crazy or something let me clarify something to you. I am already suing someone and the reason for that is because they stole a significant amount of money from me. Do you expect me to just lay down and let them keep all of my money and not be penalized for it in any way? That's absolutely ridiculous. Suing someone is not a crime either. It's actually an inalienable right in this country and I think you're ridiculous for even boldening that.

So please point out the actual excuses or problems. I don't know if you remember but you can actually be terminated for any reason or no reason at all in California. Being suspended can happen for any little reason as well and if you've worked for enough companies you would know that some companies make up a reason even if it's not true. As for the write-up I was never given a formal write-up and they emailed me that they had given me the write-up. They demanded that I acknowledge it over email without any way to refute it and apparently no signature is required. I don't think that would actually hold up anywhere. By the way the supervisor in question ended up getting jumped a week later after I was fired which I found out from my old manager who happened to show up where I was currently working. So apparently he's a pile of problems that likes to create problems for other people because otherwise why would he get jumped by someone? Apparently he runs his mouth more than he should and provokes people more than he should. But you're not highlighting that are you?

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by ACfixer

We're good, apology accepted and allow me to extend my own in return, I edited out the "backside" part. Look I get your point, and I truly sympathize with those of you guys that can't get an interview. Your rights are being violated and you have a right to be angry and frustrated by the process...

My point was just this Casoobaru, I had a past... a long time ago, and I paid for my sins and have been clean for well over three decades now... so let me see if I can word this in friendlier terms as it related to the OP who DID get an interview.

Look through his rolling diatribe of kickingass and taking names and all the stuff he's forgotten about, along with the excuses for each. The only reason I brought my transgressions in was the fact that in spite of my spotted past, they don't generally let that be any kind of deciding factor if you are currently not doing that crap, aren't smoking dope, and don't have any outstanding lawsuits or court cases etc. I'm not saying "moral character" should have anything to do with it but in CA right now it sure gives them a way to pull the weeds and IMO that's just what they've done.

You see how his posts have gone, now imagine how the interview went. Just like Dan said, they probably aren't seeing this guy as someone that looks to de-escalate situations. When you have discretion on who you can issue to, if you issue to some guy that ends up shooting a gas station beggar for nothing other than begging, you have a real problem.

It's may issue - which means may not. Don't get me wrong, I think OP should be able to carry if he's not a felon, end of story. I'm just explaining the "may-not" part from an outsider's perspective.



All that, right there.

Am I not allowed to forget dates or just not care about certain irrelevant things like getting suspended from a company I'm planning on quitting? As for kicking *** and taking names where did I say anything even remotely similar to that? If someone is constantly escalating when you're trying to deescalate a situation there's really not much you can do about that so when he squared up with me and threatened me by saying he runs with gang members or used to or whatever what do you think should happen there? Should I sit in my car and wait for him to swing on me if that was what he was planning on doing or should I Square back up with him and tell him to back the **** off? As for me being in a lawsuit which you like to highlight I can tell you right now that I'm 100% not at fault for why I'm suing the person. He stole a significant amount of money from me and again do you expect me to just lay down and let him keep it? I would rather us both not have anything and become homeless than him get to steal my money which was a Year's worth of pay for some people. And by the way I'm allowed to sue someone who wrongs me. There's nothing wrong with that and it wasn't even taken into consideration since I'm the ****ing plaintiff.

You're talking about how my posts have gone on an online forum where I can be much more descriptive and I'm not strapped for time because I have to go to work later today like I was in the interview. I was actually very concise and to the point in the interview. This was the one question that tripped me up because I honestly didn't know why the **** I was suspended I just glanced at the email, saw the word Monday and said that's not going to work. Again it's like talking to someone you don't want to talk to or reading a book you don't want to read you're not going to give a **** what's on the page you're probably going to get the information you need out of it without reading very much of it at all. There's something called skimming but I guess that's a crime. I guess I'm supposed to care about things that are mostly irrelevant so I guess when I go through my emails of coupons instead of just looking for the part where it shows the code I guess I should just read the entire thing even though 90% of it will be irrelevant. I didn't care about the reason they had suspended me because I was already working on my resignation letter. Just like I wouldn't really care about the reason someone broke up with me if I was already checked out of the relationship. Or vice versa.

Now we've gotten to my favorite point the part where I don't look to be someone to deescalate situations. I'm actually armed for around 50% of my work life, legally of course. My job description is literally to deescalate situations. The night I was having issues with the supervisor I was actually in the middle of trying to deescalate it but he was sitting there trying to escalate it the entire time throwing accusations out, threatening me, trying to get me to say things that simply didn't happen and trying to twist my words around repeatedly which I refuted every time. I wasn't there for when he got beat up a week later but I imagine he did something similar to the people he got beat up by and there were probably gang members so they probably weren't worried about whooping him. I've only had one situation where I almost had to pull my gun out at work and it was because it was a 5150 individual who was being very threatening to myself in the store employees and who is known to attack people and pepper spray doesn't work on him nor does a taser. The situation was de-escalated so your point there is moot.

I suppose I should learn how to take things out of context just like you because I'm thinking people might listen to me more if I do that more often but I'd rather continue to be an honest individual even if for some reason it doesn't work out. Biologic, even me sending in the appeal would be considered confrontational because I'm trying to provide my side of view which I guess is a confrontation or on a front to Someone Like You or the cops. That's probably why this state has gone in the ****ter and there are so many homeless people and drug addicts around. Personally I don't think someone who was on crack for even 5 years should be allowed to have a gun but I guess the state thinks otherwise.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

You cannot be denied an enumerated inalienable right because you were terminated.

Being rude or an asshat isn’t grounds for denying you your rights.

Go back to my post and put them on notice to issue the permit to a non prohibited person or be sued in federal court without immunity under federal law for deprivation of rights.
And show them Shuttlesworth v Birmingham Alabama and the People of California v Diaz, and give them 10 days to issue your permit or be sued in federal court while you exercise your right with impunity as prescribed by law.

And be prepared to serve with the suit. It costs $402 to file.

And if/when more people take the deprivation of rights seriously, we can finally put our civil servants, civil service employees on notice that it won’t be tolerated.
The decision in NYPRA v Bruen said;
“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.”

Yes states MAY permit IF they issue to anyone not prohibited.
They may further restrict carry in sensitive places based on the Text, History and Tradition between 1790-1869.

Other than that they have no authority to deny you.

I’d sue the person who denied, the supervisors, the chief, the department, the city council, the mayor, your assembly member and senator if they conspire to deny your rights.
Let the court figure the rest out after they lawyer up and submit briefs.

The law is in your side.

Do you actually think this would work? Do I have to do this before I appeal or can I wait until after my appeal is denied? I'm actually prepared to hire a lawyer over this because I think this is absolutely ridiculous and unjust. If I don't appeal then I'm basically just admitting to a crime apparently. If I do appeal and they still deny it then I will probably be having to defend against the crime which is also ridiculous. It's basically a lose-lose at this point.

[jerkface38]

Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale

They think this person’s going to shoot instead of beat up those he gets mad at

Why would I shoot? I'm literally carrying a gun for about 30% to 50% of my work life currently and have never even had to pull my gun. I've only considered it one time because there was a guy who is known to be aggressive and has beat up several women already but is always let out. And the only reason I even considered it was because he would not leave the store and became very threatening as usual. He's already cornered one of the store employees and another guard actually had to pull his gun on him. Tasers and pepper spray don't work on this guy so that's completely useless apparently.

So I don't even understand where they would get that from considering I'm already carrying for 30% of my life. And that's literally not what they even said I called them yesterday and they said it's because the deputy reviewing my case didn't feel like I was being forthcoming with information regarding my suspension. I believe that's even word for word what they said. The problem with that is I was this forthcoming as I could possibly be giving the information I actually knew. The only information I knew is that I was supposed to be there monday, told them I wouldn't be making it Monday and could do Friday and we scheduled for that. I didn't glean any other information from the email because I didn't give a **** about it and was planning on quitting anyways.

It's just like when you read a coupon email and you are not looking for anything else in the email, you might read the first three words or maybe even the entire first sentence and then you'll skim down and jump around looking for the code. That's basically what I did with this email because I simply didn't give a **** about the company anymore.

It's similar to my onboarding paperwork. I didn't read any of it I simply filled out the forms they asked me to fill out. Have you never had a situation where you didn't read an email entirely? Especially from a person or entity that you have no interest in anymore? I couldn't even tell you why my ex-girlfriend broke up with me because I wasn't listening as I was already checked out of the relationship. I heard a few things but I really didn't understand any of it nor did I care. Had I known this would have been a question on the interview I would have been more throw with the question. Another thing is I wasn't hiding it because been more throw with the question.

Another thing is, I can say with almost certainty that I wasn't hiding it because I believe I even offered to go through the email and find it right there for him so we could find out the exact reason. If memory still serves, he denied that and said it wasn't necessary. Now I could be wrong about this because the interview was such a long time ago and I don't even remember half of the questions he asked off the top of my head. I had my phone right there with me so I could have simply looked up the email and told him exactly the reason but I'm almost certain he told me not to bother with that.

[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.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by jerkface38

Do you actually think this would work? Do I have to do this before I appeal or can I wait until after my appeal is denied? I'm actually prepared to hire a lawyer over this because I think this is absolutely ridiculous and unjust. If I don't appeal then I'm basically just admitting to a crime apparently. If I do appeal and they still deny it then I will probably be having to defend against the crime which is also ridiculous. It's basically a lose-lose at this point.

First off, unless you are prepared to spend 6 figures or get pro-bono representation who is committed to going all-in, you are fooling yourself about a lawsuit that would have any chance of success.

Next, assuming you are prepared to lay out that kind of coin - do not sue them or get adversarial in any way with them until all administrative options have been exhausted.

Your job right now is to eat crow, admit mistakes, win over hearts and minds and influence the right people by presenting the best side of yourself in an appeal.

Originally Posted by ACfixer

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.

Pretty much all this ^^^

You have a tough row to hoe now. It can be done but I am telling you that a lawsuit is likely not going to get you where you want to be, unless "a lot poorer" is where you want to be.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

First off, unless you are prepared to spend 6 figures or get pro-bono representation who is committed to going all-in, you are fooling yourself about a lawsuit that would have any chance of success.

Next, assuming you are prepared to lay out that kind of coin - do not sue them or get adversarial in any way with them until all administrative options have been exhausted.

Your job right now is to eat crow, admit mistakes, win over hearts and minds and influence the right people by presenting the best side of yourself in an appeal.




Pretty much all this ^^^

You have a tough row to hoe now. It can be done but I am telling you that a lawsuit is likely not going to get you where you want to be, unless "a lot poorer" is where you want to be.

This and this ++

[DolphinFan]

Yes, I would sue from the get go,
You have absolutely nothing to lose.

You are in the right. You have the inalienable, enumerated right.

You can exercise your right “WITH IMPUNITY” when faced with an unconstitutional restriction.

Don’t listen to these people, you don’t need an attorney to file a law suit. And it’s so narrow an argument with such great supporting prescient, why would you not want to sue?

Do you ask the government when words you can type? Speak? Write?
Do you ask government permission to pray to your choice of Deity? Place of worship? Prayers or psalms.
You don’t

And as of June 23, 2022, you have the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self defense.

File in federal court. File both deprivation of rights,

More importantly, file for dismissal based on the 10th Amendment.

Since the incorporation of the 2A via the 14A STATES NO LONGER HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE, except for sensitive places based on Text History and Tradition between 1790-1869.

The federal national constitution allows it. The state constitution states the inalienable right to “self defense”, each of the 58 counties has an exception for discharging a firearm for…”Self defense”.

Add in Diaz, Shuttlesworth, and you have a strong case.

The other downside to a permit is the limit of the number and type of handgun you can carry.

Limit of 3?, 5?, again, government exceeding their authority.

And anyone who the jobs you have to spend 6 figures to fight this is just scaring you.

No it’s $402 to file the suit.
It will give you leverage.
There are plenty of cases cited here to make your case.

Read this again and tell me you don’t have a right to carry and require permission above and beyond the constitution.

“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.”

The Supreme court said NOTHING in the decision about permits or government permission, does it?

It says, “YOU HAVE THE RIGHT”

Permits are only addressed in concurring or descending OPINIONS.

Opinions are not legal decisions.

The court did say, States “May” permit, IF, they issue to all non prohibited people.

So disappointed at all of the cowards who feel they need to ask permission for something they have the absolute, enumerated, inalienable right to do.

[SharedShots]

This is just an observation:

There is a significant percentage of people on this forum who despite owning guns aren't really in support of the 2nd/A

EXCEPT

when it applies to the Roster, the AWB, buying ammo, transferring guns-whether buying/selling/trading/gifting. When it comes to carry there is pretty much silence.

When someone posts about the Roster, its a call to arms, all are welcome and wrath be heaped on anyone, if for example they would even suggest the Roster was designed to secure anyone's safety. Yet, when it comes to carry and someone says something such as CCW Holders are less likely to use a gun illegally compared to the remainder of the population, it gets a pass. A pass is also given to those who tout the background check process because it means they've been vetted in some way.

The very people who (and they know who they are) would never tolerate anyone saying they can't speak (although some of those do try to impose that on others in some way) or use any of their other rights will either defend though silence or instead explain why no active effort should be made when that right is denied/infringed. However; let someone get denied during a DROS process and there they are with the entire entourage to not just say it's wrong but also pushing for direct action. How easily it's said that when it comes to carry that is just the way it is and please, do follow the process except if it comes to a DROS delay of more than some number and drag out the big boy pants, boycott this or that store and do not take it, do, do, do. For carry? Just go along to get along.

When you observe carefully, its almost difficult to not see the pattern and realize just how well it's done. Like I said, its just an observation however, never underestimate the effort those who have and their capacity to tell those who don't to just get along to go along. Then watch what happens then something like another sensitive place is named which affects them, WTF, everyone, we need to do something.













.

[NorCalBusa]

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.

I think you stated how many readers feel- but don't want to "pile on" (15-yard penalty and all).

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by jerkface38

So I did call them and I asked for the reason. They were actually forthcoming and told me that they felt that I was not being truthful or forthcoming when he had asked me why I was suspended from my job. I did not expect this as a question and had not thoroughly read the email prior to the interview.

Whether or not you ought to be licensed is another discussion. The game says the IA holds decision authority. But the game is also governed by rules (explained by SCOTUS) and if we have to play by them, so does the IA.

This is why you need to write the appeal letter.

Bruen doesn’t sanction “feelings”, and the CA Attorney General agrees (Page 2, 3rd para):

The Court emphasized that licensing schemes that “require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course” were acceptable, because such requirements were “narrow, objective, and definite standards” designed to ensure that only “‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’” could obtain a public-carry license. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. at p. 2138, fn. 9. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion explicitly acknowledged that states “may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements” that did not grant open-ended discretion to licensing officials. Id. at pp. 2161-2162 (conc. opn. of Kavanaugh, J.). Justice Kavanaugh specified that such objective requirements can include “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.” Id.

Also see:OAG Legal Alert 2022-02

You don’t want to beat them over the head with the citations. Based on your conversation with xxxx you understand there is a feeling that you were not being truthful or forthcoming on the job suspension. You want to clarify the statements and situation and appeal to have the license issued. Then, succinctly explain the confusion. Succinctly. Write, edit, edit, and edit. Don’t talk about conflicts or other junk. You simply realized it was a poor person-job fit. Thank them in advance for their early approval and send it.

What you want back is an approved appeal and license issuance.

Failing that, you want a letter that doesn’t refute the “feelings” dismissal, but reinforces it showing they are not issuing based upon their subjective and non-empirical evaluation. With that, a good lawyer should be able to explain the error to the IA without going to court.

The best part is that the AG appears to be on your side.

[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.