San Luis Obispo (old info)

[greasemonkey]

If that is the case, it is a very recent change, coinciding with the new sheriff.

I guess the new Sheriff wants as much special attention as Merced Co.'s gonna get

[Jack L]

I heard the same.

[Hopalong]

There is also some indication in this thread about SLO number-of-guns on the permit problems -- http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=404821

True.

I spoke with a guy very recently at the range who said he was just approved for his CCW in SLO.

He said that he was practicing with his two allowable guns for his qualifying.

I said, I have three on my permit. Are you sure?

He said yes.

Then I see it posted here that SLO allows two guns on the permit now

If that is the case, it is a very recent change, coinciding with the new sheriff.

[Librarian]

There is also some indication in this thread about SLO number-of-guns on the permit problems -- http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=404821

[wildhawker]

Please hang tight, let me dig a bit. We'll probably send some applicants through very soon.

[wildhawker]

Don't know how much water this holds but: I was talking to the owner of a local gun shop about CCW (he is a CCW instructor as well) and he said that he's been doing more classes than ever before and that Parkinson is handing them out frequently. His words exactly 'under the previous sheriff maybe 1 in 10 would get approved, under Parkinson I would guess only 1 in 15 get denied" He also said that the under-sheriff is giving interviews as soon as you drop off the paperwork i.e. same day. Was refreshing to hear and this guy is very much 'in-the-know'.

Good intel, and interesting because it's not what we've heard otherwise. Sounds like we need to dig into this.

[wildhawker]

When I was denied, I requested copies of the approved applications... they wanted two grand in copy charges. I then requested to inspect them in person, which was also denied. They cited personally-sensitive information that must be redacted before they can be publicly viewable.

This is a tactic that many sheriffs use to deny your constitutional right of access to public records. We have litigation in Ventura on this issue, and we will be making the next filing very soon.

[cosmos7]

When I was denied, I requested copies of the approved applications... they wanted two grand in copy charges. I then requested to inspect them in person, which was also denied. They cited personally-sensitive information that must be redacted before they can be publicly viewable.

[wildhawker]

I would like to walk through the sheriff's office door with about 6 of us and do a formal on the spot records review request. 6 of us could divide up the current CCW GC statements and parse through them rather quickly. Separate out the ones that might be of use to us for CCW, and then do a request for those specific apps in hard copy form.

With that info in had, we would effectively be mimicking the initiative here. If we are denied then, I would think that we would have grounds to approach the grand jury on Equal Protection violation grounds.

How many people need to be involved to reach class action status?

.

I admire your tenacity, and trust me, it's necessary if you're going to survive as a gun rights activist. However, let's not be antagonistic without some potential for return. The process for requesting documents is clear, and what you described is not the best way to get what you want. Further, there is a new sheriff in town - the older records are probably of no value anyway.

There is no class action to bring now, and no matters to bring before the grand jury. This would not be mimicking the Initiative, because the methods, goals, and tactics are simply not congruent. Only ~10 people in the US (a good fraction of those are attorneys) have full knowledge of what the Initiative is doing, how, and why; what you see posted publicly is only that which doesn't compromise ongoing action.

Channel your anger and frustration into culture-reinforcing activities; you might check out this thread for some ideas.

[choprzrul]

I would like to walk through the sheriff's office door with about 6 of us and do a formal on the spot records review request. 6 of us could divide up the current CCW GC statements and parse through them rather quickly. Separate out the ones that might be of use to us for CCW, and then do a request for those specific apps in hard copy form.

With that info in had, we would effectively be mimicking the initiative here. If we are denied then, I would think that we would have grounds to approach the grand jury on Equal Protection violation grounds.

How many people need to be involved to reach class action status?

.

[Moto4Fun]

Registered as a volunteer and waiting!

I have had a filled out application either sitting on my desk or saved on my hard drive for a couple years, and just haven't done it due to rumors of denial. Now I will wait until someone suggests the timing is "better" and give it a shot. The whole Sheriff's race was a tough one and put the brakes on my application. Of the original 8 potential candidates, I though 6 had very good CCW policies, and sure enough, one of the two questionable ones was elected. I was quite disappointed.

[greasemonkey]

Once Calguns lets us all know when it's time, we can try to obtain our CCW's locally. If we are denied, then I suspect some of us will move to a defense friendly CA county or state.

Why move upon denial of issuance? That's when things get fun and CGF really comes out to play...

[choprzrul]

The evidence suggests that only cops and the well-connected need apply.

Hypothetical: I apply with above GC statement and get denied. Something happens and I am seriously injured/killed. Would the body of evidence that only LE & well connected receiving CCW be basis upon which to build a lawsuit against the sheriff?

Secondly, it is my understanding that any citizen can submit evidence to the Grand Jury for consideration. Would denial of my GC be grounds for prosecution under 18 USC 241-242 based on Heller/McDonald finding that I have a right to self defense?

.

[wildhawker]

Does this include 60% disabled veterans who are physically unable to either retreat and/or stand and fight without a firearm?

.

The evidence suggests that only cops and the well-connected need apply.

[Ford8N]

Does this include 60% disabled veterans who are physically unable to either retreat and/or stand and fight without a firearm?

.

I'll quote the typical SLO law enforcement mantra " Call 911"