San Diego CCW

[Paladin]

According go Sheriff Gore there have been 186 CCW applications in the first three months of this year. He does not say how many of those have gone completely through the process and have been issued but so far there have only been 6 denials. 2 of those were prohibited by the state and 3 did not pass background check. Not sure of the last one or if his math is off. So basically he makes it sound as if your application has gone through with a decent good cause statement, chances of approval are pretty good.

Source is an interview last week on KOGO radio with Carl DeMaio. CCW discussion starts at about 4:40

https://kogo.iheart.com/featured/the...ersy-and-ccws/

and the CCW part ends at 10:00.

What stood out, beside the raw numbers of applicants (186) and denials (6) in the first 3 months of this year, was the percent approval rate (94%) and saying that when an application is on the fence between issuing and denying over GC, he now says issue it (at 9:00 min). If you keep track of posters re. SDSO, that sounds also like the attitude of the CCW unit re. applicants and their applications: they're no longer looking for an excuse to deny a CCW, but looking for a reason to issue it AS LONG AS YOU'RE OTHERWISE QUALIFIED (e.g., pass background check/GMC).

So, (1) yes, Gore has really changed his attitude & practices re. CCWs and so has the CCW unit. (2) If you're not willing to figure out something -- anything -- that distinguishes you from the average SD resident that could put you at risk (e.g., often go hiking/camping where cell phone coverage is spotty; regularly go shooting with several semiauto handguns, rifles, and/or shotguns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition) AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE/PROOF THAT THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE (photos of you hiking/camping in wilderness; shooting range receipts, gun club fee receipts/membership card, photos of you shooting at that range, etc), you're either lazy or you're trying to make a point and not really trying to get a CA CCW.

And for those who think they're "too principled" to put more than "self defense" as GC and somehow think that will improve things in CA: (1) How does that make you and yours safer?

(2) The NRA got a LOT of states that were on the fence to pass Shall Issue because they could point to states that had already passed it and had no problems with it. The more counties within CA that we get to readily issue CCWs will similarly put pressure on the remaining counties to issue more liberally.

Of course, just as with states, there will be some counties that will fight us to the bitter end. But, since CA CCWs are good throughout the state, the more GGs with CCWs in CA, the better for all of us, regardless of whether we individually have a CCW or not. That's why we also want national reciprocity: to FLOOD CA with out-of-state CCWers (16M nationwide, IIRC). (FWIW Myers, on his campaign website, says he opposes national reciprocity.)

[MajorCaliber]

I know how difficult it is to speak as clearly in an interview as one would like to or as clearly as one can write, but taken literally, Gore’s words mean nothing. Comparing a number of applicants to a number of denials in a three month period when the period it takes to process an application is 60-90 days tells us nothing. If he had said 186 applications had been “adjudicated” or something similar, that would be significant, but only a small portion of the people who have applied in the first three months of this year have had their outcomes concluded one way or the other, especially considering the applications are not arriving at a constant rate but seem to be arriving at an increasing rate so that number of 186 is back loaded. Perhaps he is just not a numbers guy, or he just spoke carelessly, or it is intentional subterfuge, we have no idea.

All of this is not a reason not to apply, because it is clear that significant change in approval rates has taken place. I’m just trying to clarify what the numbers mean.

[Paladin]

I know how difficult it is to speak as clearly in an interview as one would like to or as clearly as one can write, but taken literally, Gore’s words mean nothing. Comparing a number of applicants to a number of denials in a three month period when the period it takes to process an application is 60-90 days tells us nothing. If he had said 186 applications had been “adjudicated” or something similar, that would be significant, but only a small portion of the people who have applied in the first three months of this year have had their outcomes concluded one way or the other, especially considering the applications are not arriving at a constant rate but seem to be arriving at an increasing rate so that number of 186 is back loaded. Perhaps he is just not a numbers guy, or he just spoke carelessly, or it is intentional subterfuge, we have no idea.

I believe you are confusing "approval" rate (i.e., they have been provisionally approved pending passing training, etc), with "issuance" rate (% of applicants that have been issued CCWs), which takes longer. Gore used the term "approval rate" in the interview.

[CessnaDriver]

One thing is certain for me, this is the best chance I've had in my entire life.. and I ain't gettin' any younger so now is go time. There is nothing to lose and potentially my very life or loved one to save. Hell just yesterday some shirtless anarchy tatted up freak approached my wife and I in parking lot begging for money. The new normal of course.

[MajorCaliber]

I believe you are confusing "approval" rate (i.e., they have been provisionally approved pending passing training, etc), with "issuance" rate (% of applicants that have been issued CCWs), which takes longer. Gore used the term "approval rate" in the interview.

It seems to me Gore is confusing them. I suspect you and I are both referring to the same data source, Gore's interview on the Carl DeMeio radio show. Gore said "We had 186 people apply for CCW's in the first 3 months of this year. We turned down 6." He later referred to having a "94% approval rate". I interpret the first part to mean that 186 people submitted applications. Given the 60-90 days it takes for a determination to be made and the fact that it certain seems like the wait time to submit an application has been greatly increasing due to an increasing rate of submittals, I can only conclude that only a small part of those 186 have been either approved or denied at this point.

Now if we knew that out of 186 applications, 6 were denied and 180 were approved, THAT would be 97% approval rate but 6 denials so far out of 186 applications that have come in the door, when most have had no decision, tells us very little numerically.

[Paladin]

It seems to me Gore is confusing them. I suspect you and I are both referring to the same data source, Gore's interview on the Carl DeMeio radio show. Gore said "We had 186 people apply for CCW's in the first 3 months of this year. We turned down 6." He later referred to having a "94% approval rate". I interpret the first part to mean that 186 people submitted applications. Given the 60-90 days it takes for a determination to be made and the fact that it certain seems like the wait time to submit an application has been greatly increasing due to an increasing rate of submittals, I can only conclude that only a small part of those 186 have been either approved or denied at this point.

Now if we knew that out of 186 applications, 6 were denied and 180 were approved, THAT would be 97% approval rate but 6 denials so far out of 186 applications that have come in the door, when most have had no decision, tells us very little numerically.

I don't "give" you your givens.

In the context of all he said, your interpretation makes no sense. His does. Sure he said there were 6 denials and then says that 2 denials were because they were "prohibited by the state" (whatever that means) and 3 because they couldn't pass the background check. So what happened to the 6th one who was denied??? He also says the approval rate is 94% when that would be true if 6 were denied out of 100, not out of 186, which would be an even higher approval rate of almost 97%

Regardless: he said clearly that none of the denials were for GC.

More importantly, SDCGOPAC has posted in the SDCo. CGSSA thread that "hundreds" (yes, plural), of folks have been issued CCWs since Sept and that NOT ONE has been denied over GC, AFAtheyK. They also posted on their FB page 5 days ago that in the next week or 2 (from then), they'll have a LOT more info on their website's CCW page.

FWIW I'm backing off of SD Co threads because there are really only 2 issues: (1) Has Gore liberalized CCW issuance to where most law-abiding gunnies in SD Co can get a CCW? That has been clearly answered as "Yes!" And (2) Who to vote for on June 5th? That's less clear now, esp given Gore's issuance rate and Myers making part of his campaign promises to fight against National CCW Reciprocity and to fight for removal of all guns and 2nd A RKBA for people merely arrested, not convicted, of DV and other similar crimes (child abuse, elder abuse, animal abuse). (Ck Myer's campaign page under "Issues" and subcategory "Gun Violence".)

My *guess* is that under either Gore or Myers, CCWs should be readily available over the next 4 years. You guys will need them to put the process online to speed up renewals and initial CCWs. The greater the number of SD Co. CCWers, the safer your streets will be AND the less likely a future sheriff will try to go back to restrictive issuance ever again (i.e., require elevated GC). While SD (and OC) should eventually get to ~60,000 CCWers each, I wouldn't feel like your permits are "safe" until you get to at least 20,000. You NEED an online process for that!

The real fight, IMO, in SoCal now is winning LA county (pop. 10M), by electing Bob Lindsey for sheriff. If we can win that, we'll go from just over 50% of CAians being able to readily get CCWs to ~85%

[Someday]

This might sound like a ridiculously stupid question, but one of the questions is how many tickets/accidents you've had in the past 5 years. How do I go about finding out?

[CessnaDriver]

This might sound like a ridiculously stupid question, but one of the questions is how many tickets/accidents you've had in the past 5 years. How do I go about finding out?

DMV you can request your record.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/online/dr/welcome

[baggss]

This might sound like a ridiculously stupid question, but one of the questions is how many tickets/accidents you've had in the past 5 years. How do I go about finding out?

Ask your car insurance company. They always seem to know....

[Someday]

OK, next question. I got a copy of my driving record from DMV. I noticed two things right away:
1. no mention of speeding ticket from 3 years ago (I went to traffic school)
2. No mention of no-fault accident last month

Does this mean that I don't have to report them on the application?

[marcusrn]

List all trafic violations and accidents in last 5 yrs. Tell them traffic school with no record listed so you don't know exact date or cit# because no DMV record and same for no fault accident. I had same on record with a no fault total vehicle and got LTC in 12 weeks. Tell them more, cause chance they know more than you.
Good to see teachers getting involved in their own welfare.

[CessnaDriver]

Front plate missing fix-it ticket I assume is not something to report right?
I was moving, but it's not a moving violation is it?

[Someday]

List all trafic violations and accidents in last 5 yrs. Tell them traffic school with no record listed so you don't know exact date or cit# because no DMV record and same for no fault accident. I had same on record with a no fault total vehicle and got LTC in 12 weeks. Tell them more, cause chance they know more than you.
Good to see teachers getting involved in their own welfare.

Thanks!

[baggss]

Front plate missing fix-it ticket I assume is not something to report right?
I was moving, but it's not a moving violation is it?

I would report it, just to show honesty....

[coryhenry]

Just followed up with the clerk yesterday about my application. It has been two months since submittal and he said I was still in background check. Obviously they are really backed up, because I would clear a background in a second.