San Bernardino

[roadtrip]

The reaction from your employer depends on quite a few different circumstances. Is the company you work for large or small? A smaller company is less likely to have a dedicated HR department to complete these forms, and the form may just end up on the owner's desk. At a larger company, HR may simply receive the form, complete it, and send it back without the owner/CEO even being notified.

The bottom line, however, is going to be the "gun-friendliness" of whomever sees that piece of paper with your name on it. In a worst case scenario, you could potentially be fired if your company/boss is not 2A friendly. Of course, you probably wouldn't be fired just for applying for the CCW (that would be probably be a slam-dunk case if they did), but if they're anti and don't like having a "gun-nut" in their midst, they'll find some legitimate reason to get rid of you.

Probably more likely, though, is that their anti-2a sentiments will start influencing their decisions in regards to you and your employment. To the people at your employer that know about your ccw application, you'll always be "the guy that wants to carry a gun"...which as we know, not everyone understands or appreciates. Does that mean you may get passed up on for a promotion? Possibly. Will it change your interactions with these people socially? Possibly. If they're gun-unfriendly, you can be sure that it will influence their opinion of you in some way, shape, or form...and probably not for the better.

With the state of economy the way it is right now, and the prospects of finding alternate employment so poor, it's an extremely difficult step to take for many of us.

[Knauga]

To add you now have to qualify with that firearm first. Not a problem. I would make your appointment with the range and get signed off on it first. Then take your approval (student copy) into the SBSO and pay your $24 dollars, have your firearm ran through the system and do the paperwork (pretty painless and in one trip). You may have to wait up to 6 weeks for your new permit with the added firearm(s). After your permit is ready you will have to surrender your old permit in person or by mail (so you will be without the ability to carry till the new amended permit arrives if you do the mail option).

Just silly. The changes under Sheriff Hoops have just been dumb. It used to be when you went through the initial class you qualified with one of your 3 listed guns and they told you that it would be good for you to seek further training, but it was up to you. The initial qualification was all about safe firearms handling. When you did a change, you simply brought in the new weapon with your CCW. The detective would copy down the numbers to make sure it was accurate on the license and make a comment about your new "Hawg leg" or slick new piece and mail you your new CCW within a week or so. Now qualifications with all the guns and with any changes... what if you added another copy of the same gun? I have two identical guns on my CCW, what is gained with "qualifying" with it?

Driving back and forth to the ONE location in a county the size of San Bernardino can be a REAL hardship. There are parts of the county that are a 4 hour drive to the location where you have to go in order to pick up your new license. Once is bad, twice is just ridiculous. It has been sad to watch this once very pro-ccw department start to slide.

Just silly.

[NinetyNinthArmory]

Any comments from those who have been through the process on how a DUI is viewed? It isn't a firearms related infraction, but I know it is sometimes a dis-qualifier for other things. Again, it has been over 3 years and it happened while in college.

[Knauga]

Any comments from those who have been through the process on how a DUI is viewed? It isn't a firearms related infraction, but I know it is sometimes a dis-qualifier for other things. Again, it has been over 3 years and it happened while in college.

Generally yes it is a dis-qualifier. The more time between the occurrence and application the better. The people who I have spoken with who have been successful with a DUI on their record have had more than 15 years of clean record between then and now. I wouldn't advise anybody against applying, but your odds are very slim.

[Mr_Monkeywrench]

Please clarify things for me. I work for a LARGE California university. We have a huge faceless HR department. My immediate supervisor is EXTREMELY anti 2A. If the sheriff contacts my HR dept, Im good with that. Like I said, they are huge and faceless. If the contact my immediate supervisor, I wouldn't be surprised if he goes out of his way to purposely tank my chances of getting a LTC. So do they contact HR, or my immediate supervisor, or both?

[WASR10]

Please clarify things for me. I work for a LARGE California university. We have a huge faceless HR department. My immediate supervisor is EXTREMELY anti 2A. If the sheriff contacts my HR dept, Im good with that. Like I said, they are huge and faceless. If the contact my immediate supervisor, I wouldn't be surprised if he goes out of his way to purposely tank my chances of getting a LTC. So do they contact HR, or my immediate supervisor, or both?

The HR department for my school was the only people/person contacted. The letter was received, entered the Human Resources bureaucracy, filtered through the red tape, and sent out. No one else, from my immediate Dean to the Chancellor, has been informed.

One unique occasion where the faceless state machinery came in handy!

[Mr_Monkeywrench]

The HR department for my school was the only people/person contacted. The letter was received, entered the Human Resources bureaucracy, filtered through the red tape, and sent out. No one else, from my immediate Dean to the Chancellor, has been informed.

One unique occasion where the faceless state machinery came in handy!

Man, you have no idea how much stress you just relieved me of!!
That is awesome news!!
I was stressed because I know how anti my supervisor is; I could care less if if our HR dept knows.

[Knauga]

Please clarify things for me. I work for a LARGE California university. We have a huge faceless HR department. My immediate supervisor is EXTREMELY anti 2A. If the sheriff contacts my HR dept, Im good with that. Like I said, they are huge and faceless. If the contact my immediate supervisor, I wouldn't be surprised if he goes out of his way to purposely tank my chances of getting a LTC. So do they contact HR, or my immediate supervisor, or both?

They will contact the persona and address you put down on the form. Give them the HR department as a contact point for your employer.

[DocClark340]

Just silly. The changes under Sheriff Hoops have just been dumb. It used to be when you went through the initial class you qualified with one of your 3 listed guns and they told you that it would be good for you to seek further training, but it was up to you. The initial qualification was all about safe firearms handling. When you did a change, you simply brought in the new weapon with your CCW. The detective would copy down the numbers to make sure it was accurate on the license and make a comment about your new "Hawg leg" or slick new piece and mail you your new CCW within a week or so. Now qualifications with all the guns and with any changes... what if you added another copy of the same gun? I have two identical guns on my CCW, what is gained with "qualifying" with it?

Driving back and forth to the ONE location in a county the size of San Bernardino can be a REAL hardship. There are parts of the county that are a 4 hour drive to the location where you have to go in order to pick up your new license. Once is bad, twice is just ridiculous. It has been sad to watch this once very pro-ccw department start to slide.

Just silly.

[HowardW56]

Just silly. The changes under Sheriff Hoops have just been dumb. It used to be when you went through the initial class you qualified with one of your 3 listed guns and they told you that it would be good for you to seek further training, but it was up to you. The initial qualification was all about safe firearms handling. When you did a change, you simply brought in the new weapon with your CCW. The detective would copy down the numbers to make sure it was accurate on the license and make a comment about your new "Hawg leg" or slick new piece and mail you your new CCW within a week or so. Now qualifications with all the guns and with any changes... what if you added another copy of the same gun? I have two identical guns on my CCW, what is gained with "qualifying" with it?

Driving back and forth to the ONE location in a county the size of San Bernardino can be a REAL hardship. There are parts of the county that are a 4 hour drive to the location where you have to go in order to pick up your new license. Once is bad, twice is just ridiculous. It has been sad to watch this once very pro-ccw department start to slide.

Just silly.

Many agencies make their officers/deputies qualify with anything they are going to carry. (Primary, back-up, off duty)...

I don't know if this is a POST requirement, but its not a bad idea... I'll admit that I own guns that I don't shoot as well as I would like...

[wildhawker]

San Bernardino is enforcing unlawful requirements. They are also collecting a lot of money and not performing the services that money serves to provide for.

If anyone is denied or suffers delay or monetary damages because of the unlawful policies and practices of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office, please email me at bcombs at calgunsfoundation dot org.

-Brandon

[DocClark340]

Many agencies make their officers/deputies qualify with anything they are going to carry. (Primary, back-up, off duty)...

I don't know if this is a POST requirement, but its not a bad idea... I'll admit that I own guns that I don't shoot as well as I would like...

[Knauga]

Many agencies make their officers/deputies qualify with anything they are going to carry. (Primary, back-up, off duty)...

I don't know if this is a POST requirement, but its not a bad idea... I'll admit that I own guns that I don't shoot as well as I would like...

That is because those agencies are responsible for what those officers do with their guns and they need to document proficiency. It is not appropriate to hold civilians to a professional standard. The person responsible for a civilian who carries a concealed firearm is that civilian. It is in THEIR (the civilian's) interest to get training and be proficient, but it is not the place of the department to REQUIRE that.

I would suggest that you to get more training and practice with your firearms before you decide to carry them, but beyond a basic ability to handle your firearm safely (ie: keep it pointed in a safe direction, knowing what makes it go bang and that you can function the controls while still keeping it pointed in a safe direction) the sheriff is overstepping his bounds in attempting to place these requirements on civilians not employed by his department.

[HowardW56]

That is because those agencies are responsible for what those officers do with their guns and they need to document proficiency. It is not appropriate to hold civilians to a professional standard. The person responsible for a civilian who carries a concealed firearm is that civilian. It is in THEIR (the civilian's) interest to get training and be proficient, but it is not the place of the department to REQUIRE that.

I would suggest that you to get more training and practice with your firearms before you decide to carry them, but beyond a basic ability to handle your firearm safely (ie: keep it pointed in a safe direction, knowing what makes it go bang and that you can function the controls while still keeping it pointed in a safe direction) the sheriff is overstepping his bounds in attempting to place these requirements on civilians not employed by his department.

I agree with the first paragraph, and disagree with the second, I believe that anyone that carries a firearm should be able to demonstrate a minimum level of competence with it...

I agree with your training comment, I have trained quite a bit with a few different instructors. (the most enlightening was force on force, the most challenging was low light)

I don't know how many firearms you own, and you don't know how many I own. But, once you have accumulated a large number of them, I expect that you will find that there are some that you just don't shoot as well as others.

I don't shoot a Sig P225 as well as I shoot a P226, P228, P229...

I don't shoot a S&W 39 series as well as I shoot a S&W 59 series...

1911's are always a pleasure to shoot, and fairly easy to shoot well...

Glock model 21 grip is a little too large to be comfortable, but they are reliable and some people love that design.

I don't shoot a S&W J frame as well as I shoot a S&W K, L, or N frame...( Even the 2" K frames)

[Knauga]

I agree with the first paragraph, and disagree with the second, I believe that anyone that carries a firearm should be able to demonstrate a minimum level of competence with it...

And who decides the "minimum level of competence"? Is it the agency that requires the applicant to don a flak vest, helmet and complete a rigidly scored and timed course of fire? There is one.

Previously the Sheriff's dept in San Bernardino County required an applicant to shoot one of the listed guns a total of 10 rounds that required a reload during the process for an unscored course of fire. The purpose of this course of fire was for you to demonstrate a minimum level of competence and safety with the weapon. The instructor watched the shooter, not the target. If you kept your weapon pointed in a safe direction, fired your rounds safely, reloaded without pointing your weapon in an unsafe direction and handled your weapon in a safe manner even after you completed your course of fire, you passed. Afterwards it was suggested that you get further training. To me, that is the extent of the Sheriff's responsibility.

In my class there was an elderly gentleman who was using a walker following surgery. In a friends class there was a woman whose previous experience with firearms had only been with other people shooting her with them. One of the deputies spent quite a bit of time helping her get comfortable with her gun. Should they not be able to defend themselves because they haven't demonstrated an ability to the Sheriff to shoot like Dirty Harry?

To me, minimum level of competency is showing safe handling skills and showing that you are not going to accidentally shoot somebody, beyond that you are on your own to get training and if you fail in that you are on the hook legally if you act in a negligent manner. Many other states require no live fire qualification for their CCWs, why should we? Why should we attempt to throw up barriers to good people having the capability to protect themselves? For the record, the state of California has no requirement to have ANY live fire training for the CCW process.