San Joaquin

[92Fatboy]

I hate to be the guy to say it, but I think we need to remember that being as CA is a "may issue" state, the Sherrif himself can be held personally liable for any wrong doing that someone does that he signed off on. I don't blame SJSO for doing a through check, but it needs to be done in a timely manner. 9 months plus is just unacceptable.

[Paladin]

I hate to be the guy to say it, but I think we need to remember that being as CA is a "may issue" state, the Sherrif himself can be held personally liable for any wrong doing that someone does that he signed off on. I don't blame SJSO for doing a through check, but it needs to be done in a timely manner. 9 months plus is just unacceptable.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/California_License_to_Carry_Concealed_Weapon_%28CCW%29#Liability_of_Issuing_Authority

[92Fatboy]

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Ca...uing_Authority

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you just cited an Assembly Bill, not law or government code, correct? If you can cite the law itself giving the Sherrif immunity from legal recourse, I'd love to see it! I'm not trying to challenge you or cause drama, I just want to be able to cite the law with the code the law comes from when in debate on this issue with others. Thanks in advance.

[Paladin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you just cited an Assembly Bill, not law or government code, correct? If you can cite the law itself giving the Sherrif immunity from legal recourse, I'd love to see it! I'm not trying to challenge you or cause drama, I just want to be able to cite the law with the code the law comes from when in debate on this issue with others. Thanks in advance.

The bill had an "[o]verview of existing law and case law". I'll quote it below and add emphasis to the vital parts (code, case law, key analysis).

a) Overview of existing law and case law.
Government Code 818.4 immunizes a public agency for any
injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension or
revocation of, or the failure or refusal to issue, deny,
suspend, or revoke any permit, license certificate,
approval or order or similar authorization where the
public entity or an employee of the public entity is
authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such
authorization should be issued, denied, suspended, or
revoked.

Similarly, California Government Code Section 821.2
immunizes a public employee from any liability for any
injury caused by his or her issuance, denial, suspension
or revocation of, or the failure or refusal to issue,
deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license certificate,
approval or order or similar authorization where he or
she is authorized by enactment to determine whether or
not such authorization should be issued, denied,
suspended, or revoked.

The California Supreme Court has repeatedly held that
Government Code Sections 818.4 and 821.2 in combination
totally and completely immunize public agencies and
their employees from any liability where they take any
action on permits or licenses except where the duty to
issue clearly involves no determination of any kind on
the part of the licensing agency.
Nunn v. State of California (1984) 35 Cal.3d 616, 627;
Morris v. County of Marin 18 Cal.3d 901, 911-915

Your sheriff, like all other CA CLEOs, is "authorized to determine" whether (1) GC and (2) GMC exist, and thus is "totally and completely immunize[d]" from "any liability" for a San Joaquin SO CCWer's actions.

[92Fatboy]

Thanks for the info. I had not read it that way before. With all that on the table though, why in the world do the counties willingly break the law with the amount of time they take to issue their response? If, by law, they are not liable then the paperwork and interview process should be a slam dunk after the background check. Sad....

[Heatseeker]

Thanks for the info. I had not read it that way before. With all that on the table though, why in the world do the counties willingly break the law with the amount of time they take to issue their response? If, by law, they are not liable then the paperwork and interview process should be a slam dunk after the background check. Sad....

There may be a clue about our sheriff there....

[mbz dr]

I was denied by sheriff Moore and I can till you from my personal experience with him that he do care about the people in his county not for liability reasons but for worth off people life. I do disagree with his ccw policy and how he is delaying people but I can see where he come from. I dont think that a20 year old applying for ccw shuld get it just because it is his 2nd amendment . Some innocent person might be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the young buck with no life experience makes the wrong choice. Look at the good side of things until you are forced otherwise. .. just my 2 cents on this

[backpacker57]

I was denied by sheriff Moore and I can till you from my personal experience with him that he do care about the people in his county not for liability reasons but for worth off people life. I do disagree with his ccw policy and how he is delaying people but I can see where he come from. I dont think that a20 year old applying for ccw shuld get it just because it is his 2nd amendment . Some innocent person might be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the young buck with no life experience makes the wrong choice. Look at the good side of things until you are forced otherwise. .. just my 2 cents on this

Well stated. Nice to see that not everyone thinks it's a conspiracy.

[Mayor McRifle]

Are they still working on July of 2014 appointments?

[backpacker57]

Are they still working on July of 2014 appointments?

Yes. A friend got the call a few days ago. She interviewed on July 7 2014. They are at 11 months now.

[slayer61]

San Joaquin Slow Office

Yes. A friend got the call a few days ago. She interviewed on July 7 2014. They are at 11 months now.

Sarcastic comment deleted

[tleeocinca]

I dont think that a20 year old applying for ccw shuld get it just because it is his 2nd amendment . Some innocent person might be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the young buck with no life experience makes the wrong choice.

So it's cool if a 21 year old goes off to war and defends this country, but not cool if he wants to protect his life? This has got to be the one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard.

[Ari_Gold]

So it's cool if a 21 year old goes off to war and defends this country, but not cool if he wants to protect his life? This has got to be the one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard.

This ^^^^^ there are plenty of people 30, 40, 50, 60 years old who by my assessment are not mature enough to carry a firearm. However the great thing about our constitution is these rights are available to all citizens, regardless of maturity, life experience, or whatever BS restriction you want to place. Age should play no role. If you are of legal age to own a handgun you should be allowed to carry.

[BigSig]

When applications increased the wait times grew. Not sure there is much they can do. Bummer. Im 6 months now and I guessing its at least 6 more.

[slayer61]

It's just sad that the wait is this long. I applied in October of last year and ...