Alameda

[Vinnie Boombatz]

I just realized I cannot find my approved DROS copy for the firearm I intend to carry. I thought I read somewhere here Judy was requesting some form of paperwork regarding this? like a "proof of ownership"..

Suppose I can just take a photo of the actual serial number and my DL next to it for proof..

I was told that you can just send them the serial number and they will check the serial number to make sure it matches on your range day.

The deputy's name is Judea, not Judy.

[Calif Mini]

Wish I had known that multiple guns were allowed when I did the class / qualification.

Thanks for letting us know.

Anyone else around that can share something on the psych exam?

[gexpro]

I just realized I cannot find my approved DROS copy for the firearm I intend to carry. I thought I read somewhere here Judea was requesting some form of paperwork regarding this? like a "proof of ownership"..

Suppose I can just take a photo of the actual serial number and my DL next to it for proof..

[Vinnie Boombatz]

Just received an email from ACSO...Was told I can bring two firearms to my range qualification and 90% or better is NO LONGER required for two firearms.

[gexpro]

Just got cleared for livescan and received email to schedule psych eval.
Pretty good considering I had my livescan done on 2/4.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

I received a reply informing me that I can "bring my secondary weapon and qualify with it" on my range day. I did not get a reply to my question about whether or not we still have to shoot 90% or better in order to have the secondary firearm on the permit.

[SilveradoColt21]

I agree with those that are not happy about having to be proficient at 25 yards. I'd dare to say in 99.9% of situations if the threat is that far away I'm not taking a shot and my priority will most likely be looking for cover or concealment, or even better I'll be looking for a way to get further away from the threat and remove myself from the situation.

With that said though, complaining and hemming and hawing is not going to change anything. As much as I disagree with the 25 yard requirement, I spent the last month using this as an opportunity to actually get better at shooting at that distance. Prior to that I just wouldn't bother because I wasn't good at it. Hopefully that portion of the qualification will go away in the future, but the fact that it's here now means you better get good at that distance and stop making excuses, because no matter how much you dislike it, it's what's currently on the test.

At the pace that things are currently moving with the processing of applications, that requirement will probably be dropped by the time us that applied in August get called in for Quals. Judea said that my interview is supposed to be sometime in mid 2023 and it can possibly be later than that.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

I agree with those that are not happy about having to be proficient at 25 yards. I'd dare to say in 99.9% of situations if the threat is that far away I'm not taking a shot and my priority will most likely be looking for cover or concealment, or even better I'll be looking for a way to get further away from the threat and remove myself from the situation.

With that said though, complaining and hemming and hawing is not going to change anything. As much as I disagree with the 25 yard requirement, I spent the last month using this as an opportunity to actually get better at shooting at that distance. Prior to that I just wouldn't bother because I wasn't good at it. Hopefully that portion of the qualification will go away in the future, but the fact that it's here now means you better get good at that distance and stop making excuses, because no matter how much you dislike it, it's what's currently on the test.

[SilveradoColt21]

but I'm not seeing how having to be a marksman at 25 yards to get that 90% makes one any safer with their weapon.

It doesn't... just more silly rules that are violating Bruen , just like the roster of "safe handguns", it's ludicrous.

[Dhaberman]

I did my live scan in December have heard nothing since.

[Noobie678]

The way to think about is this - How many government-mandated (local, state, Fed) exams (civil service, DMV, certificate, etc.) or qual courses have you seen that require a 90% to pass? Can you imagine the passing score for the DMV test being 90%? I've taken a few of the CA, DC, and Fed certification exams and passing score never had to be 90%. So the levels that the government sets passing scores are always comparable. 70% is always lower than 90%. The government cannot set their employment exams and quals so high that it fails a large percentage of applicants or employees. That would result in a equal opportunity lawsuit. So basically, 90% for two is unfair to the public and unwarranted given the score required for one. You can't hold the public to a higher bar than the professionals that the government trains. Sorry about the long-winded response - it's my advocacy side kicking in.

I thought the 90% thing was bullsh*t as well but according to my instructor from the safety class, Ahern put this in place because of the fact that different weapons have different triggers and he expected a higher level proficiency if you were going to switch between different weapons. I guess if you're typically carrying a double action only handgun and then switch to a 1911 you might accidentally shoot someone with the lighter trigger squeeze. I would agree that one had better be well trained and competent on whatever weapon system they are using but I'm not seeing how having to be a marksman at 25 yards to get that 90% makes one any safer with their weapon.

[sfo_shooter]

The course of fire that @Vinne... posted indicates "Must pass both qualifications with 90% or better to carry two guns." I infer that they are limiting to two firearms for new applicants only with 90% or better on each. (Previously they were limiting to one firearm for first applicants, with second added at renewal if 90% on both). I'd love to be wrong.

I strongly doubt that the course of fire for CCW qualification is the same for their deputies, so I imagine that scoring can't be compared.

The way to think about is this - How many government-mandated (local, state, Fed) exams (civil service, DMV, certificate, etc.) or qual courses have you seen that require a 90% to pass? Can you imagine the passing score for the DMV test being 90%? I've taken a few of the CA, DC, and Fed certification exams and passing score never had to be 90%. So the levels that the government sets passing scores are always comparable. 70% is always lower than 90%. The government cannot set their employment exams and quals so high that it fails a large percentage of applicants or employees. That would result in a equal opportunity lawsuit. So basically, 90% for two is unfair to the public and unwarranted given the score required for one. You can't hold the public to a higher bar than the professionals that the government trains. Sorry about the long-winded response - it's my advocacy side kicking in.

[sfo_shooter]

Please see my NOTE in that same post. I mentioned that I was sent this Course of Fire document weeks before the 1 firearm for initial applicants was revised. Nobody knows what the number of firearms is currently or what (if any) required score will be and if it will determine if you can carry more than one firearm.

My plan is to show up with the firearms I intend to have on my permit and enough ammo to shoot the test with each off them along with the Approved DROS documentation to show that the firearm(s) are in fact registered to me.

That's a good idea. If it were me, I'd have about 10! Variety is the spice of life!

[NateTheNewbie]

I missed it, thanks for clarification.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

The course of fire that @Vinne... posted indicates "Must pass both qualifications with 90% or better to carry two guns." I infer that they are limiting to two firearms for new applicants only with 90% or better on each. (Previously they were limiting to one firearm for first applicants, with second added at renewal if 90% on both). I'd love to be wrong.

I strongly doubt that the course of fire for CCW qualification is the same for their deputies, so I imagine that scoring can't be compared.

Please see my NOTE in that same post. I mentioned that I was sent this Course of Fire document weeks before the 1 firearm for initial applicants was revised. Nobody knows what the number of firearms is currently or what (if any) required score will be and if it will determine if you can carry more than one firearm.

My plan is to show up with the firearms I intend to have on my permit and enough ammo to shoot the test with each off them along with the Approved DROS documentation to show that the firearm(s) are in fact registered to me.