Orange

[ant21b]

No good cause can simply mean self defense you dont know otherwise.

[Bucc]

No good cause can simply mean self defense you dont know otherwise.

That's why people are now getting requests from their interviewers for amended "good cause" statements?
The problem is, "good cause" is no longer simply "self defense", you need to come up with specific reasons why you feel you need to carry for self defense.
What reasons the Sheriff's Dept. policy calls "good cause" is something of a question at the moment. Failing you being a testifying witness agains organized crime, a politician, a celebrity.......good luck.
They say there are good cause statements that will make the cut;
I overheard the deputy checking people in the day of my interview talking about what that MIGHT be. It was a relatively high bar. Example:
Large cash deposits from a business made on a regular basis. These deposits need be be of record going back several months. The number mentioned was very high.
The problem is, I don't know if the guy talking had the authority to be making those statements so I cannot attest to them being a proper guideline.

[JimGenz76]

Had my initial interview on 3/23
Live Scan 3/23
Residence Check 3/28
I emailed my investigator who conducted my interview today asking if I should proceed with CCW training his response -

We are still waiting to get more direction from the Sheriff. Hold off on training for now. Prepare a good cause statement and email it to me for your file. Included anything that is pertinent such as carrying large sums of cash for business, victim of crime etc. Hopefully this week we will have a better idea of how the Sheriff will want to move forward in light of the ruling. The case will be heard in June and hopefully it won’t take too long for the court to decide. I will reach out to everyone as we get the information.

[xreaperx]

[MotoriousRacing]

Livescan

Where did you go for LiveScan?

[xreaperx]

UPS on their list day after interview

[repo4sale]

California Sheriffs' Association Sponsors Anti-CCW Bill AB 1134
Yesterday, sources confirmed that California's elected sheriffs, through their California State Sheriffs' Association, are the sponsors behind the anti-CCW Assembly Bill 1134 (Asm. Stone - D, Santa Cruz).

AB 1134 is an outright attack on the carry license ("CCW") application process, a new burden on applicants, and a blatant attempt to overturn the Los Angeles Superior Court's decision in Lu v. Baca (currently on appeal) and the longstanding precedent of Salute v. Pitchess.

AB 1134 would legislatively remove the duty of sheriffs to accept and process applications.

Under AB 1134, any sheriff could -- by nothing more than a wink-nod agreement with a police chief of a city in their county -- institute a system by which all carry license applicants would have to apply with that police chief -- and that police chief only.

AB 1134 is a direct assault on California's carry license system....and it's scheduled to be heard on April 7!

Sent from my SM-G386T1

[xreaperx]

No bueno

[DoubleCab]

There is an article in the Register today(factually wrong btw) saying the same thing. She did not have to reverse her decision due to the En Banc hearing! Like any Sheriff in any county, she can be shall issue if she wants. She is just being pressured to fall in line with the other anti-issue counties(LA, SD, AL) The article says they are changing position due to the ruling. THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN RULING due to the en banc request! It's a total bull **** answer that just sounds reasonable. Now she has flip flopped and again, self defense is no longer good cause.

IMO this is BS, and is due to pressure from the CA AG. They put the squeeze on her because she is the only outlier on the issue. FU Kamala! They are doing everything they can to be in lock step because they KNOW they are behind the 8 ball and will loose the en banc hearing.

Don't give up if you are still in process, imo Peruta will be upheld and will stand. They will all eat their policies in the end.

Hang tough!

[rraley]

For the folks who had there interview before the ninth circuit decision to re-hear the case, if your interviewer told you to go ahead with your livescan and training. That was a verbal contract that cost a lot of people a lot of money. If they then say "oh we changed our mind" they are in breach of that contract and are going to get the pants sued off of them. Class action and otherwise

[Doheny]

Orange

For the folks who had there interview before the ninth circuit decision to re-hear the case, if your interviewer told you to go ahead with your livescan and training. That was a verbal contract that cost a lot of people a lot of money. If they then say "oh we changed our mind" they are in breach of that contract and are going to get the pants sued off of them. Class action and otherwise

Nah.



Saying "go ahead and do your training and LiveScan" to beat the crowd isn't the same as requiring an applicant to get it or ordering them to. Besides, the PC says an applicant can't be made to pay for training prior to approval.

Plus, a lot of people did the LiveScan and training on their own, just based on suggestions they saw here.

A lawsuit would go nowhere.

.

[civlaw]

Are there working links for the good cause statements referenced in post #1?

[Citadelgrad87]

For the folks who had there interview before the ninth circuit decision to re-hear the case, if your interviewer told you to go ahead with your livescan and training. That was a verbal contract that cost a lot of people a lot of money. If they then say "oh we changed our mind" they are in breach of that contract and are going to get the pants sued off of them. Class action and otherwise

No, it isn't. Of course, I'm just a guy who works with contracts and defends class action lawsuits.

They aren't saying ANYTHING like oh, we changed out mind", they are saying the ninth circuit CHANGED THE LAW.

No lawsuits, no class action. Not on any contract or quasi contract basis.

[jdlc]

upcoming CCW appointment

Gentlemen,
I have an upcoming appointment this Friday. I cannot meet the good cause threshold with the new ruling. should I bother going to the appointment? I waited several months to get this. Please advise.

JDLC

[civlaw]

Gentlemen,
I have an upcoming appointment this Friday. I cannot meet the good cause threshold with the new ruling. should I bother going to the appointment? I waited several months to get this. Please advise.

JDLC

Yes, because no one knows whether they meet the threshold at this time. It may be business as usual, or it may be a low threshold.