What is the procedure for obtaining a CCW in Sacramento County?

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by No Spin

John McGinness has had over 3 years to change the policy. Scott Jones the self admitted "Chief of Staff" to McGinness wrote the current policy. Now I hear they are making it easier to get a CCW. Im a firm believer in Shall Issue. Changing you policy to get votes is offensive and dishonest.

The best predictor of the future, is the past...dont lie to us know Jones and think we are too dumb to figure it out...we have enough of that at the Federal and State level.

Let's see....first post in the forum, an attack on Scott Jones. Hmm...

Do you wish to be more educated on the legal situation surrounding this policy change or are you more interested in attacking Scott Jones? PM me if you feel like learning the truth. Personally, I don't care which one of the candidates win, but you need to realize that the reason for the policy change has absolutely nothing to do with the 2010 election.

[jb7706]

Originally Posted by Python2

Not even that, there are counties that will take your application without shelling out a penny until you are approved. I should know, been through it.

However Sacramento County is not one of them. They want your $20 up front. That said a box of retail ammo costs more than that. Other than the irritation of dealing with all the hoops what's to lose?

[thebronze]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

Let's see....first post in the forum, an attack on Scott Jones. Hmm...

Do you wish to be more educated on the legal situation surrounding this policy change or are you more interested in attacking Scott Jones? PM me if you feel like learning the truth. Personally, I don't care which one of the candidates win, but you need to realize that the reason for the policy change has absolutely nothing to do with the 2010 election.

Then what is the reason?

Regarding Sacramento CCW's there seems to be a lot vague statements and innuendo by people supposedly "in the know", about why X should be done vs. Y being done. Why not give people the information they're asking for? If there's a reason for not telling us (pending litigation, etc.) then just tell us that.

Why is it so hard for people to just be honest about things?

[jb7706]

Originally Posted by thebronze

If there's a reason for not telling us (pending litigation, etc.) then just tell us that.

Read Sykes, then think about for a bit. Is it worth posting tactical information in a public forum?

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by thebronze

Then what is the reason?

Regarding Sacramento CCW's there seems to be a lot vague statements and innuendo by people supposedly "in the know", about why X should be done vs. Y being done. Why not give people the information they're asking for? If there's a reason for not telling us (pending litigation, etc.) then just tell us that.

Why is it so hard for people to just be honest about things?

It can sometimes be frustrating to fall in behind a leader, or group of leaders. If you cannot take the leadership's word that now is a good time to apply and you fear wasting the $20 and half hour of your time to fill in the application so that you might have the ability to defend yourself then move along.

There is a reason the CGF is regarded as leaders, it is because they have proven themselves and earned that title. If they are saying now is a good time to apply then, if you live in Sacto, you should apply.

Sometimes you will learn more from reading between the lines than by being a belligerent literalist.

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by jb7706

The app has space for three guns, and it does state to use additional pages to add more if needed. Seems silly to restrict ti to particular guns. I could see an argument to qualify with revolvers or semiautomatics, but it's a weak one.

I have read in posts here and elsewhere that the Sheriff of some counties does verify that the gun listed is registered to the applicant, but those are of unknown age/reliability. I don't have links to them either, but will see if I can dig them up.

If you go read thru some of the posting in Gray Petersons statutory compliance threads there were soem counties requiring this and other things like you had to submit your guns to the Dept's armor to be inspected you had to have the ammo you are going to carry approved and a buch of other really insane crap. All requirements I'm sure the friends of the sheriff who actually get approved have waived for them. I thought San Diego had the registration requirement too, but I went back and checked their webpage and it's not there.

Although I'm inclined to think if you claimed to be a CA resident since before registration started and you're listing a gun that is newer than when registration began and it's not registered it might raise some eyebrows about how you got it? Or if you moved to CA after registration started then legally you should have registered your guns within 60days. So if you're thinking about listing an unregistered gun on your permit make sure you have a legal reason why it's not registered. Which would pretty much mean it was a gun you legally owned in CA before registration was enacted.

You wouldn't want to have you permit denied because of suspected hankypanky with how you aquire your guns.

[Glock22Fan]

Let's try to put this to bed.

You are fine having a gun registered to your spouse on your CCW.

Unless you have some really deep-seated resistance to registering your firearms (I guess you have bought nothing legally the last many years) why not spend the $19 (I believe) registering them? It doesn't take long, it really isn't a hassle and it could solve problems.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

Unless you have some really deep-seated resistance to registering your firearms (I guess you have bought nothing legally the last many years) why not spend the $19 (I believe) registering them? It doesn't take long, it really isn't a hassle and it could solve problems.

As a practical matter, I agree. However issuing agencies need to follow the law and that requirement is contrary to the Penal Code specifically.

If they hold us to the letter of the law...

-Gene

[Glock22Fan]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

As a practical matter, I agree. However issuing agencies need to follow the law and that requirement is contrary to the Penal Code specifically.

If they hold us to the letter of the law...

-Gene

I agree in principle, but, as you say, there is always the practical aspect; some principles should be stuck to, but sometimes it is easier, and nothing really lost, to go with the flow.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

Let's try to put this to bed.

You are fine having a gun registered to your spouse on your CCW.

Unless you have some really deep-seated resistance to registering your firearms (I guess you have bought nothing legally the last many years) why not spend the $19 (I believe) registering them? It doesn't take long, it really isn't a hassle and it could solve problems.

Penal Code 12054(d) and Government Code 53071. GC specifically, as a county cannot require you to VOLREG your guns, neither can they require it for you in specific.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

I agree in principle, but, as you say, there is always the practical aspect; some principles should be stuck to, but sometimes it is easier, and nothing really lost, to go with the flow.

Yes. Individuals shouldn't rock that boat. Organizations however...

-Gene

[No Spin]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

Let's see....first post in the forum, an attack on Scott Jones. Hmm...

Do you wish to be more educated on the legal situation surrounding this policy change or are you more interested in attacking Scott Jones? PM me if you feel like learning the truth. Personally, I don't care which one of the candidates win, but you need to realize that the reason for the policy change has absolutely nothing to do with the 2010 election.

Yea, first post, SO. Is this forum exclusively for self-proclaimed experts as yourself? Can I have your permission to be on here?

Living in SAC I have a vested interest in this race, the current policy and whether its being used to secure votes...being from WA whats yours?

John McGinness lied to this community when he got elected by stating his "new" liberal CCW issue policy. He lied, and beat Bret Daniels who takes this issue to heart and doesnt just vomit-out the views we want to hear.

Scott Jones is and has been McGinness's Legal Advisor who wrote and supported the restrictive policy. Heck, he was Blanas's too.

Before Jones announced his bid for Sheriff, Sacramento had issued maybe 500CCW's over 8 years and McGinness and Jones actually revoked some because the holders "had money" and didnt want the political heat.

Now Jones is running for Sheriff and him and McGinness are handing CCW's out like candy...so, in your own words...Hmmmm. Dont be nieve and put the Koolaid down my friend. And, I am very interested in attacking Jones because we are TIRED of being lied to in SAC by local, so called supporters of Shall Issue...

Im sure you will attack me because this is just my second post and the fact that Im not a Veteran like YOU...so much for the 1st Ammendment, or do I need to educate my self on the Freedom of Speech too.

So, lets hear it. What was the "LEGAL" decision that made McGinness and Jones change thier policy decision on issuing more CCW's...Im Waiting

[CSDGuy]

Originally Posted by No Spin

Yea, first post, SO. Is this forum exclusively for self-proclaimed experts as yourself? Can I have your permission to be on here?

Living in SAC I have a vested interest in this race, the current policy and whether its being used to secure votes...being from WA whats yours?

John McGinness lied to this community when he got elected by stating his "new" liberal CCW issue policy. He lied, and beat Bret Daniels who takes this issue to heart and doesnt just vomit-out the views we want to hear.

Scott Jones is and has been McGinness's Legal Advisor who wrote and supported the restrictive policy. Heck, he was Blanas's too.

Before Jones announced his bid for Sheriff, Sacramento had issued maybe 500CCW's over 8 years and McGinness and Jones actually revoked some because the holders "had money" and didnt want the political heat.

Now Jones is running for Sheriff and him and McGinness are handing CCW's out like candy...so, in your own words...Hmmmm. Dont be nieve and put the Koolaid down my friend. And, I am very interested in attacking Jones because we are TIRED of being lied to in SAC by local, so called supporters of Shall Issue...

Im sure you will attack me because this is just my second post and the fact that Im not a Veteran like YOU...so much for the 1st Ammendment, or do I need to educate my self on the Freedom of Speech too.

So, lets hear it. What was the "LEGAL" decision that made McGinness and Jones change thier policy decision on issuing more CCW's...Im Waiting

No Spin... you DO need to educate yourself on 1A matters and privately owned forums... like this one. You have no 1A rights here. Why? This site is NOT owned by the government. Let me ask you this... do you think that Cooper will he be any better? He wants to find a way to pass the issue off to the DOJ. Oh, and the CCW policy? It's been in place since Sheriff Craig... or longer. Blanas and McGinness didn't change things... wonder why??? I doubt it had much to do their own personal beliefs or that of their Legal Advisor... and more to the reason why Sheriff McGinness specifically brought up the CCW issue during last Summer's budget mess...

[No Spin]

Originally Posted by CSDGuy

No Spin... you DO need to educate yourself on 1A matters and privately owned forums... like this one. You have no 1A rights here. Why? This site is NOT owned by the government. Let me ask you this... do you think that Cooper will he be any better? He wants to find a way to pass the issue off to the DOJ. Oh, and the CCW policy? It's been in place since Sheriff Craig... or longer. Blanas and McGinness didn't change things... wonder why??? I doubt it had much to do their own personal beliefs or that of their Legal Advisor... and more to the reason why Sheriff McGinness specifically brought up the CCW issue during last Summer's budget mess...

OK, scratch my First Ammendment rights on a technicality, haha. My point is that pompous and nieve attacks on my FIRST POST on local politics from someone 1000 miles away are silly and hold no merit.

Now, you want to turn this into a JONES VS COOPER race. Let me respond from my FIRST post, however ROOKIE "ya'll mite thunk it mea bee":

The best indicator of the future is history...Hence.

Craig + Blanas + McGinness + Jones = Same Ole Same Ole...the maths pretty easy....

As far as Cooper, dont know. But, I do know his stated policy here is more complex than just "passing it to DOJ". Its uniformity to more CCW flexible Counties in the State and he doesnt lie to get a vote. Secondly, at least Cooper is a Cop, Jones, a lawyer.

And yes, he was Blanas's Legal Advisor and continues to be McGinness's.
And yes, he wrote the current policy to protect McGinness, not us. What do you think Legal Advisors do.

And yes, in the last 8 months more CCW's have been issued...whats changed. A "LEGAL" issue or an election...still waiting for that response...

Or, maybe he's treating us like fools to get elected...go ahead and be led down that road my friend, I wont be.

[Kestryll]

Originally Posted by No Spin

Can I have your permission to be on here?
You need mine to be here and to post, if you'd like to lose that permission keep trolling.

Living in SAC I have a vested interest in this race, the current policy and whether its being used to secure votes...being from WA whats yours?

I'd say you're being a bit disingenuous there wouldn't you?

Perhaps your interest is a bit more than just as a resident, what with the Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. IP address and all...

I'm not that fond of those who use deception to further their agenda.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

Perhaps your interest is a bit more than just as a resident, what with the Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. IP address and all...

Ooops. I suspect that's the last we'll hear from No Spin....

I can see a PRAR being done on this.

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

I'd say you're being a bit disingenuous there wouldn't you?

Perhaps your interest is a bit more than just as a resident, what with the Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. IP address and all...

I'm not that fond of those who use deception to further their agenda.

HA HA!! BUSTED!!!

I guess "No Spin" is a computer newb that didn't know that IP info is easy to obtain!

[No Spin]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

HAHA!! BUSTED!!!

Not Busted at ALL!

The facts are the facts gentlemen and I will continue to post. If it offends you thats something we will have to work through.

The truth is the absolute defense....It must have struck a cord. If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...stick to the issues its too important for the big picture...that is if the CCW issue is what your REALLY concerned about.

[chrisw]

So.... the big picture is?

Originally Posted by No Spin

Not Busted at ALL!

The facts are the facts gentlemen and I will continue to post. If it offends you thats something we will have to work through.

The truth is the absolute defense....It must have struck a cord. If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...stick to the issues its too important for the big picture...that is if the CCW issue is what your REALLY concerned about.

[Kestryll]

Originally Posted by No Spin

Not Busted at ALL!

The facts are the facts gentlemen and I will continue to post. If it offends you thats something we will have to work through.

The truth is the absolute defense....It must have struck a cord. If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...stick to the issues its too important for the big picture...that is if the CCW issue is what your REALLY concerned about.

You came on here with an agenda, claimed that your interest was as a resident when you work for Sac Sheriff and now you wish to hide behind the claim that facts are facts.

I don't care one way or the other what your opinion is on Sac Sheriff, CCW or whatever, I am however intrigued that you come here presenting a false presentation of yourself and your agenda.

if you want to play with facts, you misrepresented yourself to bias the discussion and to hide your agenda.
That makes the one known FACT in all of this to be that you lied.

[bwiese]

For those with curiosity, let's just say Sykes is starting to have "practical resonance".

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by No Spin

Not Busted at ALL!

The facts are the facts gentlemen and I will continue to post. If it offends you thats something we will have to work through.

The truth is the absolute defense....It must have struck a cord. If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...stick to the issues its too important for the big picture...that is if the CCW issue is what your REALLY concerned about.

In all honesty, I couldnt care less what your issues are, because I feel the same way as Kestryll does about you posting as a "resident" however you were obviously trying to conceal the fact that you are connected with the Sac County Sheriffs office in some way.

That makes anything you post lose credibility IMO.

[wildhawker]

No Spin,

Assume the courts side with our argument and force issuance- can you articulate what substantive effect the Sheriff has on the CCW issue?

[6172crew]

Originally Posted by bwiese

For those with curiousity, let's just say Sykes is starting to have "practical resonance".

[Fjold]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

You came on here with an agenda, claimed that your interest was as a resident when you work for Sac Sheriff and now you wish to hide behind the claim that facts are facts.

I don't care one way or the other what your opinion is on Sac Sheriff, CCW or whatever, I am however intrigued that you come here presenting a false presentation of yourself and your agenda.

if you want to play with facts, you misrepresented yourself to bias the discussion and to hide your agenda.
That makes the one known FACT in all of this to be that you lied.

I was going to stop reading this thread because of all the whining but this new wrinkle intrigues me also. Aren't "No Spin" and "lying" mutually exclusive?


I'm also wondering if No Spin will ever learn to spell "naive" correctly since he loves to us the word so much.

[rmasold]

Have any of you on the thread actually aplied for a Sac County CCW in the last 6-9 months? I have and know several people who have applied and received the Sac County CCW under McGinness. My experience is that it has become much easier than it was under Blanas but don't expect to receive one if you have a criminal record or record of domestic violence. I believe DUI is also an excluding factor. It took about 6 weeks tho...

[rmasold]

I posted this a couple of days ago I hope this helps..

From Scott Jones
"My position on CCW issuance has never changed throughout this campaign, and is that "personal safety" is a sufficient justification for the issuance of a CCW, absent compelling reasons to the contrary. Such compelling reasons would be limited, but might include a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or a history of violence. Effectively, this will change the paradigm from an applicant having to prove a need, to the applicant starting with a premise of issuance unless there is a legal prohibition or compelling reason for non-issuance. As Sheriff McGinness' chief of staff for the last two years, i have watched the CCW Committee carry out HIS standard, and I can say with certainty that I will issue a greater percentage of CCW permits when I am Sheriff."

"It is not the lawful CCW holders that concern me--there has never been anyone shot in Sacramento County by someone with a CCW permit . It is the criminals who prey upon the innocent and who are carrying weapons illegally that cause me concern. Further, my oath of office is to provide public safety to the best of MY (not necessarily the Sheriff's Department's) ability; the less the Sheriff's Department is able to provide protection, the more I feel OBLIGATED to see to it that law abiding folks have the means to protect themselves."

[obeygiant]

Originally Posted by No Spin

Not Busted at ALL!

The facts are the facts gentlemen and I will continue to post. If it offends you thats something we will have to work through.

The truth is the absolute defense....It must have struck a cord. If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...stick to the issues its too important for the big picture...that is if the CCW issue is what your REALLY concerned about.

Let's talk about the truth shall we? Care to come clean and provide your badge#,your real name and the department Sacramento Sheriff's office or should we just get that by PRAR?

I'm pretty sure that at the beginning of your employment with SCSO that you agreed to a policy which prevents you from acting on behalf of the SCSO in any official or public capacity without prior authorization.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by No Spin

If you would like I will use a different IP Address, but the facts will remain the same...

Sounds like some poor IT guy at the SO will be making overtime tonight. I wonder what the login for the next poster will be.

BTW: LEO are welcome here. We are a very "big tent" organization. We do have the occasional member who really has a hard on for all cops but that is certainly the exception, not the rule. All we ask is that you not try and be decietful. You might want to post in the LEO forum we have here too it might help you to see that not all LEO feel the need to defend bad policy, especially when it is likely going to be found unconstitutional as well. It might help you understand that armed citizens are generall not a threat to a just government or law enforcement.

[N6ATF]

Are we missing the forest for the trees, here? Ban, purge, move on...

[Glock22Fan]

No Spin => Attitude fail.

[jb7706]

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

No Spin => Attitude fail.

At least he has company, and I'm not pointing at you.

[SixPointEight]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Gunman View Post
Are you saying we should apply with "self defense" or something close to that at this time

Yes.

With that said, I'll begin filling out the app I printed out tomorrow in the morning.

Should I literally write my good cause as "self defense" or should I write it a little more complexly and in more words?

[Mstrty]

Originally Posted by JT1989

With that said, I'll begin filling out the app I printed out tomorrow in the morning.

Should I literally write my good cause as "self defense" or should I write it a little more complexly and in more words?

Keep it short as possible. I had mine hacked up cause it was too long. Less than a full page if possible. I wouldnt just write "self defence". Self defence why?

[Glock22Fan]

Originally Posted by JT1989

With that said, I'll begin filling out the app I printed out tomorrow in the morning.

Should I literally write my good cause as "self defense" or should I write it a little more complexly and in more words?

It can do no harm, unless you just want to make a political statement, to spell out a reasonable Good Cause as Ty suggests, if you have one. His other advice is good as well.

Two paragraphs is usually sufficient, maybe three. If possible, leave out the "avid shooter" and similar elective activities.

[thebronze]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

I'd say you're being a bit disingenuous there wouldn't you?

Perhaps your interest is a bit more than just as a resident, what with the Sacramento Sheriff's Dept. IP address and all...

I'm not that fond of those who use deception to further their agenda.

So what if he works for SSD? That doesn't negate what he said. How is he being deceptive because he works for SSD? Who cares where he works?
Where do you work? What's your name and title where you work (since you asked him that)?

Am I being deceptive too, because I work for the State of California and sometimes post from work, also?

[wildhawker]

Campaigning on public time is a no-no.

[thebronze]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Campaigning on public time is a no-no.

It didn't sound to me like he was campaigning at all. It sounded like a rank-and-file person from SSD saying information that he's privy to, by virtue
of being employed by SSD (which BTW, jibes exactly with what I know from having worked there).

Even if he was (which he wasn't), that's for his employer to decide, not someone on a gun-board.

[wildhawker]

Apparently you seem to think that the public are without standing to raise the issue with the employer. Needless to say, even the appearance of campaigning could pose a serious problem for them.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by thebronze

So what if he works for SSD? That doesn't negate what he said. How is he being deceptive because he works for SSD? Who cares where he works?
Where do you work? What's your name and title where you work (since you asked him that)?

Am I being deceptive too, because I work for the State of California and sometimes post from work, also?

He was intentionally bomb throwing in the thread with just his first post and involving political and elections issues and mixing that up with the CCW issue unnecessarily.

With his second post, he then attacked me because I live two states north of here (as if the civil liberties of Americans isn't an interest to constitutionally literate people nationwide).

Think of it this way: If you worked Department of Justice's Bureau of Firearms, and your first posts were to attack your superiors for loosening up a policy to allow the issuance of assault weapons licenses, and then you attack other members of a forum questioning why all of the sudden you post a contrary statement that is opposite of the common understanding of the forum (along with a bunch of attacks on your fellow co-workers), and when taken to task and asked if you want to hear the real reason, you personally attack the person asking the question, especially when the facts stated get in the way of a rant?

It's called being an agent provocatuer, with an apparent slant against Scott Jones (perhaps a Cooper supporter?). He is also suggesting that the people going through the application process (encouraged by this thread) have an apparent lack of integrity, that they'll vote for Jones because he's on the "committee which approves CCW's". Except there's just one problem with this: The Sheriff can delegate tasks but he cannot delegate responsibility. Committee or no, the buck stops with who is sitting in the current sheriff's chair. The committee is extra-legal, and if they deny someone a license, it won't be the committee in the hotseat, it'll be the sheriff himself.

Bronze, if you're part of the DMV or some other division of the Department of Justice not relating to guns or some other state governmental agency, and even if you post an invective and do personal attacks and you get banned from a firearms forum, no one is going to care.

But when a Sheriff's office employee, an employee of an office which is currently being sued by CGF for refusing to issue licenses for personal protection, starts attacking (on the forum that CGF is associated with by it's very name) an indication of a loosening policy as "pure politics" and that "he'll screw gun owners after the elections just like John McGuinness did" completely misses and misunderstands the point. Considering Sykes is about making sheriff elections completely unimportant.....

That being said, when you're part of an agency, which in the past has played the role of g-d in approving or denying CCW's, start stirring up **** and walking into this forum like he owns the place, the first thing thought of is "agent provocatuer", which he likely is. That to me crosses the line into "Yes, he should get outed as a Sacramento Sheriff's employee". Hell, for all we know it could be McGuinness himself.

Would you expect privacy if you were a DMV drivers licensing clerk, you then go into a driving forum from work and start attacking your co-workers at DMV (without identifying yourself as a DMV employee and pretending to be just an observer of behavior as a visitor) and then start attacking others who question your motives especially since you're so new to the forum? Would you expect the forum owner to keep your secret when you're trolling their forum when your IP address resolves to dmv.ca.gov?

It would be less serious if it were just "my co-worker likes to pick his nose" situation, rather than the serious life or death circumstances which can occur from a denial of a CCW. It's time that all employees of the Sacramento Sheriffs Office understand that when the man up top is denying people's fundamental rights, they should tread lightly with the people they're oppressing while collecting a paycheck from them (both as tax payers and from the County of Sacramento's treasury, which comes from the tax payer).