San Diego CCW

[Rorge Retson]

Yep.

[ParadigmGuy]

I'm not sure if this is the best place to make this post, but it seems appropriate IRT the discussion lately.

I had my interview last week and was told to expect my approval email in about 60 days. He said that he isn't the one who makes the decison, but that I should get approved. I'm retired, I do a lot of camping (tent and RV), hiking (often with my dogs), and I ride my motorcycle a lot locally and interstate.

When I ride I wear a cut that shows who I associate with, CVMA, Combat Veterans Motorcycle Association. While this differentiates us from the MCs that might be associated with crime, it could also make us confused with them. We're a 501c.19 non-profit veterans association and ride a lot and volunteer to support veterans.

Where I camp there is often little to no cell coverage. If something did happen whether it be criminal activity or wild animal, police response would be slow.

I submitted nearly one hundred photos of me hiking with and without my dogs, me riding with my girlfriend and often in our group wearing our cuts, and a lot of us camping. All photos were recent, within the last year or so. I also submitted reservations of the past and future for campgrounds and RV rentals. I even submitted a 6 month crime history from crime-mapping.com for where I live.

If this is approved, Gore has my vote. While I did have to do a little work to gather the info and write my statement of GC, I didn't have to take a psych exam or intelligence test like I did in Monterey in 2011ish.

[asymmetricalwarfar3]

I've added you to my Ignore List.

LOL

Ok Boomer 👌

[Paladin]

Sorry for the wordy post, but I consider this a very important topic.

I have read Gore's rationale and frankly I find it unconvincing. Allow me to respectfully explain why in five parts.

First, many of the Sheriffs in the state who are all operating under the same law do accept self defense as sufficient good cause. Do you believe, or do you think Gore believes, that all these other Sheriffs are violating the law? If that’s true, what a scandal!

The statute both requires the CLEO the power to define GC for his IA and requires proof of that GC. To me, those two requirements are best harmonized by not allowing SD = GC. Do I like that? No. But intellectual honesty requires it. Are those other CLEOs violating the law? No. They're just interpreting it in a way that I think does not reflect legislative intent. If it is an egregious violation of the law, the courts are open, if they think they have a case, any aggrieved party can file a suit against those CLEOs.

Second, while the statute does require proof that “good cause exists for issuance of the license” it equally requires proof that “the applicant is of good moral character”. I was never asked to prove, nor did I ever provide, a shred of proof that I am of good moral character, and NOBODY, including Gore sweats for one second over this ignored provision. I have never heard of a single Sheriff requiring such proof, Why? Because it’s just as difficult to prove as a desire for self defense.

Because most denials by otherwise legally qualified applicants are for insufficient GC, I focus on that and not GMC. My assumption is that passing the criminal background checks and not having excessive contacts with LE that don't result in arrests is sufficient for GMC. IOW, an absence of "drama" is proof of GMC. But that's just my guess.

Third, the statue requires proof that good cause exists. It says nothing that indicates that a desire for self defense is not good cause or that one’s need for self defense must be greater than “other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way”. There is no requirement in the statute for THAT to be the correct standard rather than an “ordinary” desire or need for self defense. As far as I can tell, THAT standard was made up out of whole cloth. Under that standard, half the law abiding citizenry could always be denied their rights because by definition, half of us are always at lower than “average” risk.

I agree. But we've already discussed that and the problem of "proving" "self defense" exist making that interpretation of the statute absurd in Gore's and my opinion. (I'm guessing Hutchens came to that same conclusion, which is why after accepting SD = GC after our Peruta win, she went back to asking for slightly more and proof of that more.)

Circling back to good moral cause, nobody believes that the requirement for good moral cause is a requirement that it be above and beyond that of the morals of the ordinary law abiding citizen; in fact I think most people would think such a requirement to be absurd. So, on what possible basis would you or Gore declare that the good cause must be above and beyond the ordinary citizen? Their requirements for proof are on identical footing in the statute, and there is no basis for treating them differently.

(1) I don't. (2) The statute does not connect the two. It let's the CLEO set independent standards for each. IMO this is good. Why? Look at Monterey. When their current sheriff came in, he said he'd accept SD = GC. He was all for GGs CCWing. BUT to ensure you were in fact a GG, he shot GMC through the roof with family, neighbor and employer interviews and mandatory psych evals. That sucks, but it took Monterey to "dark green" on the map. After a few years I've heard he still does some of that but now requires psych evals only on a case-by-case basis.

FWIW baggss and I have discussed in the past how to incorporate GMC requirements into the current map or even making up a separate GMC map. Our conclusion was that since neither of us get paid for all this work for others and since for the vast majority of us GC is the bar whereas GMC is only a hurdle, we'll only focus on GC until we get statewide SI/SD=GC, either legislatively or judicially.

Fourth, if we are really going to take seriously the need for “proof”, the proof of my need and desire for the self defense is the fact that I filled out a CCW application, put “self defense” for good cause and signed it under the penalty of perjury. That is proof.

The way the CLEOs apply the GC requirement can be thought of as what would suitably complete this sentence: "I need to carry a concealed handgun because ...."

"[B]ecause my crazy ex has attacked me and is stalking me" makes sense. Sufficient "proof" of that would be police reports and court ordered restraining orders.

"[B]ecause of self defense" makes no sense. Even if it did, what would be sufficient "proof" of self defense? Again, it sounds nonsensical.

Fifth, I don’t buy Gore’s story of a sudden conversion after talking to a real estate agent, after years of pleas from equally worthy citizens and years in court with the Peruta case. I think his current stand is nothing more than a convenient fig leaf he had to come up with when faced with a credible opponent who would issue for self defense He had to start issuing but did not want lose too much support from the left by going to a self defense standard. I think it was nothing more than a political calculation, not a principled stance based on the details of statutory interpretation or else he could have adopted his current standard many years ago.

I don't care what his motivation is. I'm not a psychic so I won't try to guess. I'm just happy that in ~2 years he's increased the # of SDCSO CCWs by 10x.

Don't forget he stopped all appeals in Peruta at the 3-judge panel loss. He didn't appeal to CA9 for en banc.

Finally, I understand your points about gas stations and ATM’s. I guess my point is that I should not have to intentionally visit unsafe places that I would not ordinarily choose just to prove that I’m at heightened risk, and it’s rather perverse for a Sheriff to expect me to do so. Someone could just as easily look at the same evidence and decide it shows somebody with poor judgment, risk awareness, and risk aversion and decide that is exactly the kind of person he does NOT want to carry a gun—just the kind that would end up in a situation where use of the gun might be necessary. Nobody should be penalized or have their rights curtailed because they choose to live their life as safely as they can.

You won't get any argument from me. I could save 5 min each time I drive to a regular area by driving through a ghetto. Instead I stay on the freeway and drive around it.

Hopefully, SCOTUS will weigh in on our 2nd A RBA and we won't have to deal with, at least, GC much longer.

[MajorCaliber]

... The statute does not connect the two....

I would argue it does connect them by making them co-equal and undifferentiated items on a list of items requiring proof. IANAL, but it seems to me there is a strong legal argument that items listed similarly need to be treated similarly and should not be interpreted by wildly different standards.

If there were a law that stated:

"A person is entitled to such and such a benefit if they are"

1. Under 5 ft tall
2. Over six feet tall
3. Left handed


But the person interpreting and implementing it decided that the statue required proof from only the applicants under 5 ft tall and furthermore required them prove that they were smarter than the average citizen. Would you not find that disparate treatment of similar items in the statute to be rather bizarre and unjustified?

Any lawyers want to weigh in on this?

...My assumption is that passing the criminal background checks and not having excessive contacts with LE that don't result in arrests is sufficient for GMC. IOW, an absence of "drama" is proof of GMC. But that's just my guess.

And I would suggest if absence of contrary evidence is sufficient proof of GMC, GC should be treated the same way and that both:

1. The conclusion that a different standard of proof is actually required by the statute, and

2. The assertion that that the statute requires proof of a need above and beyond ordinary citizens for GC while not for GC,

are both completely made up out of whole cloth and find no justification in the statute.

The way the CLEOs apply the GC requirement can be thought of as what would suitably complete this sentence: "I need to carry a concealed handgun because ...."
...
"[B]ecause of self defense" makes no sense. Even if it did, what would be sufficient "proof" of self defense? Again, it sounds nonsensical..

Even if one insists on the need to complete that sentence for GC and not for GMC, there is no reason this should not be sufficient: "I need to carry a concealed handgun because I live in San Diego County, an area where violent crimes against innocent citizens outside their homes occur every single day and carrying a concealed handgun is the most practical and effective way to defend myself"

[gameparts]

Happy to report I received my CCW approval today by email. I did both my 1st and 2nd interview on the same day, Aug 13th. I already had with me all the paperwork she was going to have me bring back, so the clerk just said she would do the 2nd interview at the same time as the 1st. GC is I am a licensed mental health care provider. She asked for two proofs of residency, my college degrees, my mental health license, my DD214, and the background investigator also called my manager to verify employment. The Sheriff's dept staff and the background investigator were all very nice and very helpful.

So Aug 13th interview makes my notification today Nov 13th technically 92 days. Not sure why it took so long, but I am happy it finally came through.

Thanks to all the posts on this forum that helped me out! I also joined sandiegocountygunowners.com because they have made all of this a reality for San Diego!

[industrialpunk]

Received my CCW approval letter 90 days, to-the-day, after my second interview. Did my 8h class and pick up my permit tomorrow. Was a lot of work but worth the effort. Trying to encourage my buddies to do it too.

[Nachoman]

Just a reminder, save all the paperwork and evidence you brought to support your good cause since you'll need to resubmit it when you renew.

[Em6726]

I've got an appointment in May. Is there anyone who can help me with my statement?

[CessnaDriver]

I've got an appointment in May. Is there anyone who can help me with my statement?

You can start here with a worksheet and there are examples of good cause statements...

https://sandiegocountygunowners.com/ccw/

Also there are frequent local seminars...

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=san+diego+ccw+seminar

Only good thing about the long wait is there is plenty of time to prepare. LOL

[MajorCaliber]

I've got an appointment in May. Is there anyone who can help me with my statement?

I'm glad to help. PM me and we'll get started.

[SDBlaster]

I've got an appointment in May. Is there anyone who can help me with my statement?

Go to a San Diego county gun owners seminar ... they will get you dialed ; dates on their website www.sandiegocountugunowners.com

[industrialpunk]

I've got an appointment in May. Is there anyone who can help me with my statement?

I'm going to echo the others, go to a SDCGO seminar. Its free, you'll get the most up-to-date information about good cause and you can ask someone about your specific situation and get some solid advice. The SDCGO website has great examples of real good cause statements. https://sandiegocountygunowners.com/ccw/

SDCGO is the organization that got the sheriff to start issuing CCW and they work closely with the sheriff's department to make sure everyone is on the same page.

While your at it, become a SDCGO member

[Em6726]

SDBlaster and industrialpunk thanks for the info.

[igs]

You need to know someone on the inside.

Anton is accused of helping Garmo’s customers apply for concealed carry permits as part of a “consulting” business, which allowed the customers to circumvent the CCW applicant backlog.

https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2019/11/22/jeweler-leo-hamel-admits-role-in-illegal-arms-sales-involving-ex-sheriffs-captain/