San Bernardino

[herdafer]

Now for my questions: McMahon used to spell out in his policy some requirements for automatic disqualification (such as the already-mentioned prior suspicion of domestic violence). Those requirements don't seem to be in the policy anymore. Can anyone confirm that the SBSD no longer has those requirements, or am I missing something? Bonus points if someone can explain how denial policies where no proof of any actual wrongdoing is required (such as the policy above) are justified and are compatible with the constitution.

Some people on Calguns don't think documents listed on the SBCSD's website are actually the SBCSD's Policy so feel free take my comments with a grain of salt:

If you go to the SBCSD's CCW website (http://cms.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/CCWFAQ.aspx) and click on the "Department CCW Policy" link a PDF will open (http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/34/C...dccwpolicy.pdf). The fourth page of the CCW Permit Policy talks about how an applicant MAY be disqualified:
The last item on page 13 of the DOJ Standard Application lists a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; so it appears to me to still be a part of his policy.

[Nopal]

Some people on Calguns don't think documents listed on the SBCSD's website are actually the SBCSD's Policy so feel free take my comments with a grain of salt:

If you go to the SBCSD's CCW website (http://cms.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/CCWFAQ.aspx) and click on the "Department CCW Policy" link a PDF will open (http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/34/C...dccwpolicy.pdf). The fourth page of the CCW Permit Policy talks about how an applicant MAY be disqualified:

• Conviction of any felony crime or other disqualifier as listed on pages 12 & 13
  of the DOJ Standard Application.
• Making a knowingly false statement in the DOJ Application.
• Failing to meet the “Good Moral Character” or “Residency” requirements.

The last item on page 13 of the DOJ Standard Application lists a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; so it appears to me to still be a part of his policy.

Thanks herdafer. I'm not talking about misdeamenors. I'm not even talking about formal charges or even an arrest. Their policy used to be listed as having been suspected of things like DV, which means no arrest, no charges, and no conviction of any kind (no misdemeanor conviction). Indeed, no proof at all.

I've read their "official" policy and their catch-all "Good Moral Character" requirement can still include the sort of things that I'm inquiring about, which is why I'm looking for confirmation. In fact, their catch-all "good moral character" is what they claim they denied Birdt under.

[jaymz]

"GMC" seems pretty straightforward. "Work history" and "no disqualifying convictions".

[Nopal]

"GMC" seems pretty straightforward. "Work history" and "no disqualifying convictions".

You'd think so, hu? Birdt may disagree that's what the sheriff believes, though. I'd be nice if in the policy we could read a more detailed version of what the Sheriff considers GMC.

[SmokinMr2]

It's all still comparing apples and oranges...

What you guys seem to want is a system where they run a background check and if you pass you get a permit.

Well...except for the "It's in the Constitution" crowd that would be happy to bypass the background altogether...

Did you not see the "Welcome to California" sign on the way in?

Good Moral Character is by it's very nature subjective. It's SUPPOSED to be.
Our system is simply not set up as you would like. Get the STATE LAW changed...

As for prior "not arrests/convictions" for DV, etc. ? Call and ask.

You keep talking about all the people that get disqualified but I haven't seen anyone post they got DQ'd...except Birdt...and me, and I'm only aware of ONE other DQ. And 2 of those are fixable.

Is that DV thing YOUR issue? Once again, call and ask.

I gotta say though, just because there's no conviction or even arrest for a crime or other problem doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I worked with a guy that embezzled (for lack of a better word) 25 or so years ago. He got caught. Got fired. They didn't have him arrested or prosecuted.
Does that mean it didn't happen?
There was definitely something "morally" wrong with the guy, prosecuted or not.

Disclose it all. Let it shake out. See how long a "no" will last. It may just mean "not right now".

[Nopal]

It's all still comparing apples and oranges...

What you guys seem to want is a system where they run a background check and if you pass you get a permit.

Funny, that is pretty close to how it works on some other counties such as Alpine for example.

Well...except for the "It's in the Constitution" crowd that would be happy to bypass the background altogether...

Did you not see the "Welcome to California" sign on the way in?

And what does that mean, exactly?

Good Moral Character is by it's very nature subjective. It's SUPPOSED to be.
Our system is simply not set up as you would like. Get the STATE LAW changed...

Actually, moral character, as far as many things such as the Bar and government employment, is pretty well defined in California. Look it up.

As for prior "not arrests/convictions" for DV, etc. ? Call and ask.

What is wrong with asking this forum? Maybe someone with those issues got a permit that would chime in, or an insider? I thought this was the info forum.

You keep talking about all the people that get disqualified but I haven't seen anyone post they got DQ'd...except Birdt...and me, and I'm only aware of ONE other DQ. And 2 of those are fixable.

Funny, I know of two, and I don't get out much.

Is that DV thing YOUR issue? Once again, call and ask.

It's (or maybe just was) the sheriff's issue, and I did ask awhile back. No answer was provided.

I gotta say though, just because there's no conviction or even arrest for a crime or other problem doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I worked with a guy that embezzled (for lack of a better word) 25 or so years ago. He got caught. Got fired. They didn't have him arrested or prosecuted.
Does that mean it didn't happen?
There was definitely something "morally" wrong with the guy, prosecuted or not.

So, now people that have been accused should be presumed guilty? If there is accusation but no arrest of conviction, it may surprise you, but a lot of times it's because the suspect actually isn't guilty. The point is that you can't throw willy-nily policies without meeting some sort of standard of proof. Why are you so insistent in making excuses for the Sheriff? The whole "Peruta is not law," "this isn't Arizona," etc. I have children. Teenagers actually. My excuse detector works very well, thank you. I just hope that the good sheriff has more faith in the very same justice system that he is part of than you do.

Now, do you have an answer to my question?

[SmokinMr2]

I'm making no excuses for the Sheriff.
There's just a HUGE disconnect between the way things are and they way you want them to be.
Harping on the way you would like it to be isn't getting your questions answered or answering anyone else's questions about how to get a permit...or what to do if declined which I think was the point of this forum thread.
Peruta has it's own threads. Birdt does as well.
I'd imagine once Peruta is decided either way, someone will sue on GMC.
MANY years later that one may get decided as well.
Unless State Law changes which sure isn't going to happen any time soon, it really just makes more sense to work with what we have. Beats the heck out of "wishing" for something that just isn't so.
Ya might as well be having a conversation about Open Carry...

Now...did you have any questions about getting a permit?

[Daydrmr999]

I'm wondering if we can move back to the purpose of this sub. That being helpful information and questions about sbsd permit process. I realize some of us like to argue back and forth (and I'm not innocent either) but this sub seems to have moved away from its purpose, I think there are other more appropriate subs for this "discussion."

[Nopal]

I'm making no excuses for the Sheriff.
There's just a HUGE disconnect between the way things are and they way you want them to be.
Harping on the way you would like it to be isn't getting your questions answered or answering anyone else's questions about how to get a permit...or what to do if declined which I think was the point of this forum thread.
Peruta has it's own threads. Birdt does as well.
I'd imagine once Peruta is decided either way, someone will sue on GMC.
MANY years later that one may get decided as well.
Unless State Law changes which sure isn't going to happen any time soon, it really just makes more sense to work with what we have. Beats the heck out of "wishing" for something that just isn't so.
Ya might as well be having a conversation about Open Carry...

Now...did you have any questions about getting a permit?

Actually, Paladin's question still stands (and it's related to, surprise, Peruta!): Does the sheriff take a simple "self defense" as GC?

Now mine: Has the sheriff's once-a-suspect = guilty policy been rescinded?

Can you answer those?

[Daydrmr999]

Hey guys, quick question.

I know we get to list up to 3 guns on our CCW. When I filled out my application I only listed two guns. I called the office and asked what the process was to add another gun to the list and she said I can just take it to the range with me on my range date and they'll add it. My question is this however, If I sold one of my guns that I originally listed on the application, can I take another gun with me to the range and have that added in its place? Thanks

I don't think you will have a problem, just fill your card out with your 3 current guns on your range day. Just make sure caliber on your dros matches actual caliber of each gun.

[Nopal]

I'm wondering if we can move back to the purpose of this sub. That being helpful information and questions about sbsd permit process. I realize some of us like to argue back and forth (and I'm not innocent either) but this sub seems to have moved away from its purpose, I think there are other more appropriate subs for this "discussion."

That sounds fair. If anyone can provide answers/updates, it will, as always, be appreciated.

[SmokinMr2]

Actually, Paladin's question still stands (and it's related to, surprise, Peruta!): Does the sheriff take a simple "self defense" as GC?

Now mine: Has the sheriff's once-a-suspect = guilty policy been rescinded?

Can you answer those?

Does the Sheriff take the two word "self defense" written on the line as good cause?
Asked and answered with a no already countless times according to peoples experiences. A bit of elaboration and complete sentences are apparently required.

As to your question, I have never seen that "policy", couldn't tell you if there ever was one, and have no idea if there even was one to rescind.

Your question is interesting though. You have a hypothetical and vague question that you would like a binding answer to, and made into a "policy" of some sort it sounds like?
If the situation is yours, I'd get specific and call and discuss it...specifically.

State Law just isn't written with blanket policies for this. It's left up to the Sheriff to decide. I understand that isn't the answer you are looking for. It is however, the reality of the situation until the Law is changed or some Judge someday makes a decision that sticks.

[Paladin]

Sounds like the sheriff is acting like the Solano sheriff: liberalized issuance, but won't follow Sacto, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Fresno sheriffs in stating right on their SO websites that SD = GC.

Heck, this sheriff, again like Solano, won't even follow Ventura and Orange SOs and say, "Yes, SD = GC until and unless Peruta gets overturned. If that happens, we may change back."

So, while I'm glad the sheriff is issuing more CCWs, I see no reason for San Bernardino not to follow all those counties I bolded above. He wants political justification and cover for making SD = GC? That's what Peruta did for Ventura and Orange counties. Why won't he follow their lead? If intervention appeal by Kammie gets shot down or she loses again, that will be another opportunity for your sheriff to say, at minimum, SD = GC until Peruta is reversed. If it is, he'll reexamine the issue.

For now, I'll just add a thumbs up to this thread's title to indicate a good chance of getting a CCW w/slightly elevated GC.

[Nopal]

Paladin,

The reason SB does not follow Fresno or Orange is because we aren't Arizona.

But on a more serious note, I know of members in this forum that have been denied by the sheriff due to some rules that the sheriff used to display in his website but no longer does and I just want to know of those rules no longer apply or have simply been bundled as "GMC". Obviously, I'm not going to say who it has affected publicly so I'll just see if I can get you details via PM.

Edit: I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the reason is why McMahon didn't follow suit after Peruta is that he dug himself into a hole with Birdt and Birdt depends on Peruta (CCW in California = right).

[SmokinMr2]

Here we go..apparently you guys want to get back to the activism...

Well I'm looking at Fresno's site and not seeing anything about good cause.
I did see this:
"The sheriff may issue
There is no state law that entitles a person to be issued a license to carry a concealed weapon.
It is a requirement that you are a primary resident of Fresno County

Anyway, this thread isn't about Fresno, or any other county for that matter.

I really just think the activism belongs in another thread.
It's just not helpful here when the topic is about how to get a permit in SB or what to do when you can't.