San Bernardino

[Nopal]

Oh, and Dirte, some food for thought: If indeed there were some missteps made when dealing with Birdt and since there was no way for someone who had been denied to appeal fairly (because of the sheriff's refusal to disclose details about denials), why hasn't the sheriff begun to go through denial cases to see if any "missteps" were involved in those denials, too?

I mean, given that the sheriff has done so much good for CCWs in San Bernardino and has apparently turned a new leaf on the few things he's done wrong, why not confront head-on one of those few things that still taints his reputation and will for a long time unless repaired properly?

[The Cable Guy]

I called in today to update that I have a change in employment. Apparently they already finished the employment verification on my old employer. They just took down my new employer, address, and title and said thanks. No additional verification needed. Outstanding.

[Paladin]

If/when San Bernardino accepts SD = GC, can someone PM me?

Having a link to the SO where they state that would be idea so that I can quote it in the OP and provide the link. Then I'll update thread title as appropriate.

[Sleighter]

If/when San Bernardino accepts SD = GC, can someone PM me?

Having a link to the SO where they state that is idea, so that I can post the quote and provide the link in the OP and then update thread title as appropriate.

It's been my understanding that self-defense is acceptable cause and has been for some time in San Bernardino. Has something changed?

[Nopal]

It's been my understanding that self-defense is acceptable cause and has been for some time in San Bernardino. Has something changed?

The last time I checked that (about a year ago) they still wanted you to dress your GC a bit more than just putting down 'self defense.' They haven't been been too picky about GC anyway, but they've advised to elaborate a bit on it. Maybe things have changed in the past year.

[Quiet]

It's been my understanding that self-defense is acceptable cause and has been for some time in San Bernardino. Has something changed?

When Sheriff John McMahon came into office, one of the changes he made to the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department CCW policy was to disallow the acceptance of just stating "personal protection" as a good cause for issuance and added the need to expand upon why you need for personal protection.

Unknown if this has changed again after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Peruta v San Diego.

[Daydrmr999]

Not sure if it's changed since my interview in September, but I had an expanded self defense statement, detective Logan underlined one five word sentence. I had heard they are accepting only "self defense" now, but no confirmation. Long story short, worst case I think a one sentence self defense statement seems to be enough, but use your own best judgement.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[Dirte]

Oh, and Dirte, some food for thought: If indeed there were some missteps made when dealing with Birdt and since there was no way for someone who had been denied to appeal fairly (because of the sheriff's refusal to disclose details about denials), why hasn't the sheriff begun to go through denial cases to see if any "missteps" were involved in those denials, too?

I mean, given that the sheriff has done so much good for CCWs in San Bernardino and has apparently turned a new leaf on the few things he's done wrong, why not confront head-on one of those few things that still taints his reputation and will for a long time unless repaired properly?

A. I doubt that he feels his reputation is tarnished. I don't.
B. Call me crazy, but I would prefer that the Sheriff actual spend some time on things aside from CCW's. You know, like fighting crime and what not.
C. He is human and last I checked none of us are perfect, give the guy a break.

The last time I checked that (about a year ago) they still wanted you to dress your GC a bit more than just putting down 'self defense.' They haven't been been too picky about GC anyway, but they've advised to elaborate a bit on it. Maybe things have changed in the past year.

So what? They aren't using it as basis for denial. They accept whatever reason is given, they simply ask you to personalize it. They're not asking for a dissertation and there's no secret code words you have to figure out to pass. Carrying a firearm is a tremendous responsibility not to be taken lightly. Honestly, I feel if you can't string together 2 or 3 coherent sentences about you're own desire for self defense/personal protection you haven't put enough forethought into it anyway and that's on you.

Let's not forget that there are always politics involved too. Perhaps this is a way to provide him with just a little extra political cover from the anti's without stepping on anyone's rights. If that's what it takes for him to stay in office and keep pumping out approvals on new permits, then I'm all for it.

The reference letters are gone. One year residency is gone. The application process has been streamlined and now you can even apply online. There's no superfluous fees or extraneous training requirements. Hell, they provide you with the required training and a retarded monkey who has never held a gun before could pass the qualification.

Don't get me wrong, it's not perfect. For example, I'd like to see them ditch the employment verification, and 3 gun limit as well. But we have plenty of other battles to fight in this state and attacking this sheriff is equivalent to spending a dollar to make a dime IMO. Bottom line: our rights are not being infringed on by the SBCSO. There is still a little room for improvement, but if you want a CCW in this county you can obtain it with relative ease.

[huna koa]

Before McMahon..

way before..that was when I got mine; all those references and more, and they really did 'investigate' and follow through. Should be easier now...

[Nopal]

Look, Dirte, I generally agree with you but:

He campaigned as a constitutional 2A sheriff while simultaneously proclaiming the idea that the right to self defense was a "privilege." For such a self-described 2A hero to then be hit with a lawsuit in Federal court and for Peruta to come out indicating he was wrong, that doesn't speak well to his claims. I don't doubt he's a great guy trying to do his best and and granted that he probably inherited some of his mistaken ideas from his predecessor, but if the issue instead of being about 2A had to do with say, freedom of religion or the right to vote, he'd be in very, very hot water. But more to the point, if he had nothing to save face over, why did he fight Birdt like he has?

Before the lawsuits and Peruta he was well on his way to loosening some of the requirements for CCW issuance (for example, he unnoficially did away with reference letters shortly after taking office) so his heart has apparently been in the right place, but let's be honest: If it wasn't for Birdt and the attention that it brought to folks in institutions such as Calguns, I doubt he'd fixed some of the other backward polices he had such as the 1-year residency, the extra-official application, or the automatic disqualification for simply having been accused (and not proven) of DV at some point.

Now Paladin asked a simple question: Does the sheriff's GC policy adhere to Peruta? Care to answer that?

[Dirte]

..........But more to the point, if he had nothing to save face over, why did he fight Birdt like he has?

Now Paladin asked a simple question: Does the sheriff's GC policy adhere to Peruta? Care to answer that?

[SmokinMr2]

Peruta isn't law.

If you can't put together a sentence with more than 2 words....

Birdt's case has little or nothing to do with SB Policy changes.

He previously pleaded guilty to moral turpitude. There's apparently some question about his full time residency.
Maybe residency wouldn't be an issue if he didn't apply in more than one county... That's the way I'm hearing it anyway. Is this his first denial?

Look folks, no matter how much you want CA to be like AZ, it just isn't.

It's never going to be. The best we can hope for is stuff like Peruta getting finally settled, and Sheriffs like Mc Mahon being very "forgiving" on what the current law requires them to do.

As far as Birdt goes, even Peruta wouldn't change that. The "morals" question is still the Law, even after that gets settled.
The question I would ask is "has it been long enough"? His suspension is over, so...maybe so.

On the other hand, I heard he was being a douche in the office dropping off the application.
Maybe he should be glad SB isn't requiring a psych eval for anger management...

[Nopal]

Peruta isn't law.

Even so. The bigger question is: Is it in keeping with what most of us understand to be the 2A? If so, why underscore the distinction? Still, I do agree that we shouldn't ding McMahon too much on GC. He may require a bit more, but as Dirte pointed out, he does seem to partially adhere to the "spirit" of Peruta, at least as far as the GC part is concerned.

Birdt's case has little or nothing to do with SB Policy changes.

He previously pleaded guilty to moral turpitude. There's apparently some question about his full time residency.
Maybe residency wouldn't be an issue if he didn't apply in more than one county... That's the way I'm hearing it anyway. Is this his first denial?

What about cases where there was no pleading at all because there were no charges, such as people getting denied automatically for unproven, old allegations of DV? (there were quite a few of those denials, too). This is where McMahon wasn't (isn't?) adhering to the other part of the spirit of Peruta (treating CCWs in California as rights).

Look folks, no matter how much you want CA to be like AZ, it just isn't.

It's never going to be. The best we can hope for is stuff like Peruta getting finally settled, and Sheriffs like Mc Mahon being very "forgiving" on what the current law requires them to do.

As far as Birdt goes, even Peruta wouldn't change that. The "morals" question is still the Law, even after that gets settled...

And thank God in behalf Arizona that it isn't! Even so, just as there are worse sheriffs (psych eval, etc.), there are also even more 2A-friendly sheriffs than McMahon in other California counties. Some counties are quite a bit more like Arizona than others because ultimately, the law gives sheriffs an amazing amount of leeway into how close or far they want to adhere to the spirit of the 2A. How much more like Arizona can a California county be? You'd be surprised if you look around a bit.

[EspoMan]

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

[Nopal]

I know is poor etiquette to reply twice, but I still have some questions. But first, let's address 2 points (which I felt I did a terrible job of addressing above):

1. Peruta not (yet) being law: If we have a pro 2A sheriff, why does that really matter? Or does the sheriff not believe in the Peruta ruling?

2. We're not Arizona: No, but sheriffs here have power that the Arizona sheriffs don't have which allows them to be as close to "Arizona-like" as they politically dare. The minimum requirements are simply a properly-filled standard application, an interview, some training, and a relatively clean criminal record (criminal as in "convicted"). Is that really that far off from what Arizona requires?

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.