Alameda

[Solven]

Here's my situation:

1: Application Submission - 6/25/2022
2: Interview - TBD
3: Livescan - TBD
4: CCW Training - 8/22/2022
5: Psych Eval - TBD
6: ASCO Training/Qual - TBD
7: CCW Issuance - TBD

Based on my CCW Mock qualification, I would have comfortably passed the Alameda Range Qualification.

Question: Is it possible to submit the livescan in advance of the interview? Is there any value in doing so? I ask because of my (possibly misplaced) hope that Penal Code 26205 forces ACSO to act on my application.

Who'd you end up going to for CCW training if you don't mind me asking? I've been leaning on Security Six but the Wednesday scheduling is a bit tough.

[NateTheNewbie]

Here's my situation:

1: Application Submission - 6/25/2022
2: Interview - TBD
3: Livescan - TBD
4: CCW Training - 8/22/2022
5: Psych Eval - TBD
6: ASCO Training/Qual - TBD
7: CCW Issuance - TBD

Based on my CCW Mock qualification, I would have comfortably passed the Alameda Range Qualification.

Question: Is it possible to submit the livescan in advance of the interview? Is there any value in doing so? I ask because of my (possibly misplaced) hope that Penal Code 26205 forces ACSO to act on my application.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

Reach out to the media? They ran a bunch of stories when Bruen was release. While half of the public will be perfectly happy that the sheriffs are slow-rolling this, many won't be. And it might be embarrassing for them.

You a funny guy.

[Ron Jeremey]

Since it is coming up on 90 days since the SCOTUS ruling and when many of us had applied and they still aren't issuing, is there anything we can do as far as filing a complaint or document that we are aware they they are denying us this constitutional right?

Reach out to the media? They ran a bunch of stories when Bruen was release. While half of the public will be perfectly happy that the sheriffs are slow-rolling this, many won't be. And it might be embarrassing for them.

[AWE]

DOJ has a complaint process with the inspector general.

https://oag.ca.gov/contact/general-comment-question-or-complaint-form

Delay is denial.
Changing the permit process in an arbitrary manner.

NY has a case on record because it will take 1-2 years to get an interview.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

Since it is coming up on 90 days since the SCOTUS ruling and when many of us had applied and they still aren't issuing, is there anything we can do as far as filing a complaint or document that we are aware they they are denying us this constitutional right?

[AWE]

Disappointing news sad they are defying the supremacy clause that's bad.

Southern Cal Sacramento areas have issued after the ruling in June and some in early July.

Once SB-918 is signed and I get that letter I will file with the superior court it says you can exhaust all processes and that letter is a denial delay. The DA has 14 days to challenge and they won't for people with other states CCW or an FFL so the judge will force them to issue.

[fawndog]

I have heard of two applicants who got letters stating "The County doesn't know how to proceed, so applications are on hold."
It's a crock of spit, they sure knew how to deny applications.

[SilveradoColt21]

That's what they want they are setting up a kangaroo court. If you are denied you have 30 days to appeal to the superior court and they have 60 to 90 days to display why you are not qualified. They can also hide the evidence and the courtroom is closed to only the parties involved. If you win you are allowed to go to training and then given the permit.

Given this, would you advise me to apply now? I am really tempted and wanting to apply but not sure if I'd be wasting my time.

[AWE]

That's what they want they are setting up a kangaroo court. If you are denied you have 30 days to appeal to the superior court and they have 60 to 90 days to display why you are not qualified. They can also hide the evidence and the courtroom is closed to only the parties involved. If you win you are allowed to go to training and then given the permit.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

DOJ Bonta put out a new letter trying to defy the ruling on August 17 2022

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/medi...ag-2022-03.pdf

CA lawmakers are reaching for straws and are desperate to try and hang onto anything bit of power they have in response to the SCOTUS ruling.

The sad thing though is they might get there way because in order for this to be struck down we need peopel to step up and challenge it legally. Otherwise we're just sitting here whining about tit when nothing is being done.

[AWE]

It is a joke the ruling stated you do not need to prove to an individual in government to determine if you can have your 2A rights.

They are defying that order on paper and they know the psychological is illegal the justices said you can look for mental health records it did not say add a psychological test.

They lost and are admitting it.

[Paladin]

DOJ Bonta put out a new letter trying to defy the ruling on August 17 2022

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/medi...ag-2022-03.pdf

What a joke. As usual, like after Heller, the Left-wing extremists act like the law of the case is restricted to the holding of the case. They claim that any reasonable, narrow, objective and definitive 2A regulation will pass constitutional muster. Wrong. The test is text, history and tradition (THT) at the time of ratification of the 2A or perhaps the 14A. And yes, by that standard a LOT of gun regulations are thrown into question (AWB, standard cap bans, psychological tests and reference letters for CCWs, as well as the Open Carry ban).

Hopefully SCOTUS takes Whitaker next term and guts GMC next June the way they gutted GC last June.

[AWE]

The entire document is interpreting the ruling in their own words. I provided examples they provided.

The good moral character was stricken by the court and they are using it under a new name qualified individual stating it is different than NY. They are saying CA GMC is going to remain and it is constitutional. They are saying “Good
moral character” is a distinct question that requires an independent determination.

This includes in their eyes from Riverside
honesty,trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of
fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability,
profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the
absence of criminal conviction.” Facebook and Twitter eliminates everyone on earth.

As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant’s moral character, many issuing
authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally
interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant’s character. And
they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the
applicant’s character. Finally, we note that it remains reasonable—and constitutional—to ask
applicants why they are interested in carrying their firearms in public. Although applicants do not
need to demonstrate good cause for the issuance of a license, an applicant’s reasons for seeking a
license may alert authorities to a need for psychological testing,

Example
The evaluation of good moral
character, which can involve the weighing of defined factors, is inherently different from the openended determination of “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general
community” that was constitutionally problematic in New York’s “proper cause” requirement. Bruen,
142 S.Ct. at p. 2123. The good moral character requirement and the other remaining requirements in
California’s public-carry license scheme thus remain constitutional post-Bruen.3

[Ron Jeremey]

DOJ Bonta put out a new letter trying to defy the ruling on August 17 2022

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/medi...ag-2022-03.pdf

How does that defy the ruling? It says that CA has to drop the good cause requirement. That's what the ruling required.