Sonoma

[Gray Peterson]

UPDATE (2015 March 03):

I was just at the sheriff's updated website and his updated CCW webpage (http://www.sonomasheriff.org/ccw).

Here's the GC and GMC part w/bolding added by me:

GOOD CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE:

The applicant must establish that there is good cause for the Sheriff to issue a California Concealed Weapons (CCW) license in the County of Sonoma. The defensive benefit of carrying a concealed firearm in public must be weighed against the risk of surprise to law enforcement, the risk of avoidable and dangerous conflict escalation in a public setting, and the risk to general public safety that discharging firearms poses to law enforcement and bystanders alike; therefore, the Sheriff has determined that good cause to issue a CCW license will generally only exist in conditions of necessity. Accordingly, applicants should be able to provide convincing evidence of the following:

(a) There is an existing and significant threat of death or grave bodily injury to the applicant, or his/her immediate family, which cannot be reasonably avoided or adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and which threat would be significantly mitigated by the carrying of a concealed weapon.

(b) The applicant establishes that circumstances exist requiring him or her to transport in public significant amounts of valuable, or inherently dangerous property, which would be impractical to entrust to the protection of an armored car or equivalent service for the safe transportation of valuables.MORAL CHARACTER / GOOD JUDGEMENT

Applicants must demonstrate that they have a history of using sound judgment, and that their everyday lives are unsullied by traits that may impair their ability to safely handle a firearm, under stress, in a public setting. A determination as to one's moral character and judgment is discretionary, and based on the totality of the applicants qualifications presented on a case by case basis. Factors or traits which will bear negatively on issuance are:

(a) A long-term history of mental or emotional instability, alcoholism, drug use or addiction to controlled substances.

(b) A history of fault in serious accidents with firearms, automobiles or other dangerous instruments / equipment.

(c) A history of citations, arrests, convictions, civil law suits, employment discharges, license denials, license revocations or other actions indicating a possible propensity for violence, moral turpitude, dishonesty, or carelessness with weapons.

UPDATE: The Sonoma sheriff gutted the Good Cause requirement after Peruta 3-judge panel decision, but reversed course when it was stayed 2 weeks later:

PERUTA v. COUNTY of SAN DIEGO

On 2/13/2014 the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office dropped the "good cause" standard for issuing conceal carry permits after the requirement was struck down that day by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the Second Amendment bars California counties from requiring law-abiding gun owners who want to carry concealed firearms to demonstrate special, individualized needs for protection.

On 2/28/2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to withdraw their decision in the above case by a decision to rehear the case En Banc. The Court has ordered a stay on the issuance of their previous mandate from 2/13/2014, which only required an applicant to state a need of “self defense” as their reason for desiring a CCW License. Therefore, as of 2/28/14 the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office will revert back to requiring all applicants to supplement the “good cause” statement for the CCW License in accord with Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Policy 219 and California Penal Code section 26150(a)(2).

From: https://www.facebook.com/sonoma.sher...03383356527670

Anyone who gets denied in Sonoma Co (either by a city's PD or by the Sheriff's Office), and wants to fight it should read the following quote from my ("Paladin") post in the Monterey Co thread. (There they accept SD as GC, but push the GMC requirement.) The 14th Amendment Equal Protection applies to ALL aspects of the application process, not just GC and GMC.

So, they say SD = GC, but then push GMC through the roof and, it appears, make your RKBA subject to your neighbors', co-workers' and friends' ratification....

If Bernal does NOT follow this same procedure with ALL CCW applicants (think political donors, "friends of the sheriff"/"posse" members, politicians, celebrities), he's open for a Guillory-type 14th A Equal Protection federal lawsuit, but for GMC rather than GC.

Hypothetically, let's say there's a world-famous film star (and director) who lives in (and was once the mayor of) Carmel-By-The-Sea, a city which, acc to CGF's 2013 survey, does not issue CCWs. We'll call him "Mr. E." Let's suppose Mr. E has a Monterey SO CCW. When it is/was time to renew, if the sheriff has the same policy for renewals that means his "background investigator" would have to go to Mr. E's neighbors (who, unlike his friends, may be hard-core antis), and "ask them if they would recommend [Mr. E] be issued a CCW permit." Not only would the same procedure have to be followed, but the same standard as to judging whether to issue or not be followed. IOW, let's say 1 of your neighbors says "Nyet!" when asked if you should get a CCW and because of that you are denied. If 1 of Mr. E's neighbors also said "No!" and yet was issued, that too is a 14th A Equal Protection violation.

[Paladin]

I was just at the sheriff's updated website and his updated CCW webpage (http://www.sonomasheriff.org/ccw).

Here's the GC and GMC part w/bolding added by me:

GOOD CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE:

The applicant must establish that there is good cause for the Sheriff to issue a California Concealed Weapons (CCW) license in the County of Sonoma. The defensive benefit of carrying a concealed firearm in public must be weighed against the risk of surprise to law enforcement, the risk of avoidable and dangerous conflict escalation in a public setting, and the risk to general public safety that discharging firearms poses to law enforcement and bystanders alike; therefore, the Sheriff has determined that good cause to issue a CCW license will generally only exist in conditions of necessity. Accordingly, applicants should be able to provide convincing evidence of the following:

(a) There is an existing and significant threat of death or grave bodily injury to the applicant, or his/her immediate family, which cannot be reasonably avoided or adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and which threat would be significantly mitigated by the carrying of a concealed weapon.

(b) The applicant establishes that circumstances exist requiring him or her to transport in public significant amounts of valuable, or inherently dangerous property, which would be impractical to entrust to the protection of an armored car or equivalent service for the safe transportation of valuables.MORAL CHARACTER / GOOD JUDGEMENT

Applicants must demonstrate that they have a history of using sound judgment, and that their everyday lives are unsullied by traits that may impair their ability to safely handle a firearm, under stress, in a public setting. A determination as to one's moral character and judgment is discretionary, and based on the totality of the applicants qualifications presented on a case by case basis. Factors or traits which will bear negatively on issuance are:

(a) A long-term history of mental or emotional instability, alcoholism, drug use or addiction to controlled substances.

(b) A history of fault in serious accidents with firearms, automobiles or other dangerous instruments / equipment.

(c) A history of citations, arrests, convictions, civil law suits, employment discharges, license denials, license revocations or other actions indicating a possible propensity for violence, moral turpitude, dishonesty, or carelessness with weapons.

[GillaFunk]

(b) A history of fault in serious accidents with firearms, automobiles or other dangerous instruments / equipment.

Right. But DOJ still allows these people to BUY guns. I'm not sure where the fine line is between the DOJ saying one is safe when:
- Pass a background check
- pass a written Firearms Safety Certificate Test
- purchase and own a 'California approved safe roster" handgun

But as soon as you have an automobile accident your ability to possess a CCW permit is at stake.

I sure hope that any of those LEO's who negligently discharged their pistols and rifle at the Circle S shooting range (which then caused the range to do hundreds of thousands of dollars in improvements) aren't allowed to CCW. If so, that would be quite a double standard.

[Naquai]

My Own SRPD Experience

So I applied to the SRPD back in January. Getting to that point took some work. My reason for applying may be more specific than others, as I have an order of protection for being a victim of an assault and the criminal has completed his sentence and is being released from prison. I was able to include a copy of the protective order with my application.

I went in November to pick up the application packet. I was told (as others have said) that I needed to provide everything required other than the Psych Eval in order for my application to be accepted. I expressed that I was hoping to not incur all of the extra expenses (finger printing, training, doctor, etc...) unless I knew my application was acceptable, but I was told that SRPD requires everything up front, soooo... In December I went to FrontSight in NV and did their 4 Day Defensive handgun and 1 day CCW courses. (Talk about an amazing experience. I highly recommend them!) They require an original certified birth certificate, copy of DL and SS Card were required. I had to order a certified copy from out of the area and wait on that.... While waiting I did Live Scan finger printing (paid $113), I got my three reference letters, and the form signed by my doctor. Also in some places the paperwork said NOT to sign it or complete certain portions and in other places it said to complete and sign it, so I printed two copies, one each way. Once I had everything completed and compiled I walked it into the SRPD. I was told at the counter that in order to submit it I needed to make an appointment. I left a message at the SRPD for Det. Boettger asking to make the appointment. He called me back and said no appointment was needed and that I should just drop it off, so I went back and did so. A couple weeks later I received another call from Boetther asking me to come in for an interview. We made an appointment for the next day. I went in and had my interview with him and his superior. They asked additional questions about info provided on my application and said they would be submitting my application to the Chief. About a week later I received a call letting me know that we had reached the point in the process when they were ready to schedule my Psych Eval. I was asked what days of the week worked best for me. I got a call back the next day with my appointment info. (I was told that this is not specific to me. ALL SRPD applicants are required to do the Psych Eval if they make it that far in the process without being denied.)

Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of driving all the way to Los Gatos for that appointment. I paid $150 (which had to be in cash... be ye forewarned.. I was not.) I had to arrive by 8am. I spent 4 and half hours completing written fill in the bubble questionnaires that asked for ALOT of information. I almost did not make it through the written portion because I was offended that in order to exercise my constitutional right to protect my life I was having to forfeit my right to privacy. The questions asked were very personal and many of them would have been self-incriminating had I needed to answer them in the affirmative. I held in my frustration and completed the evaluations. Then I had a 45 minute interview with the psychologist. (He was really nice.) At the end of the interview he said, I am not allowed to discuss the results with you, but I assume that you know what this means. The this he was referring to was a thumbs up. I have heard nothing since then from the SRPD, so I assume they are waiting for the DOJ/FBI info to be returned.... I have vowed to wait until I have the permit in my hand before making any noise, but this process must be fixed. I will post again if I hear anything new or get formally approved of denied.

It is my opinion (based Only on my own experience) that SRPD is not opposed to issuing to those the demonstrate an actual need based on a credible threat. Most people in the city of Santa Rosa will never have a need to use a concealed weapon and therefore do not have a "legitimate need" to carry one. Simply writing the words Legal Self Defense is probably not going to fly with them, but providing a SPECIFIC reason that you have a "legitimate need" may produce better results. DO NOT GET ME WRONG I am not saying that I agree with that policy. I am just reporting on my observation. As I said, when my process is complete I will do what I can to change this process for others because the Psych Eval especially went well beyond what ANYONE should have to disclose in order to apply. Sorry for the long post.....

[GOLDEN GUN]

That has to be the best write up for the SRPD process I have ever read. Thank you for that

[GillaFunk]

[Naquai]

I highly recommend that anyone considering applying with for a CCW through SRPD wait a couple of weeks. I spoke with them again today and was told that I have been a bit of a test case/guinea pig and that they are currently modifying their process/requirements to help streamline it for others. It sounds like they will be good improvements. I have provided them with quite a bit of feedback.

Again, I will update when I hear more.

[thomashoward]

g'luck

[estrom]

At least it sounds like it's becoming possible for those of you living in SR, even though it's an overly burdensome process. That's better than those of us under the sheriff's jurisdiction where it's a flat 'no'.

[Naquai]

There is a forum on March 30th for the public to ask questions of the candidates for Chief of Police in Santa Rosa. The current acting chief is likely to be one of these candidates. It might be a good chance to ask questions about their position on CCW. Here is a link to the details: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/36...to-hold-public

[MudCamper]

deleted

[Naquai]

Keeping in mind that my reason for applying may be more specific than others, as I have an order of protection for being a victim of an assault and the criminal has completed his sentence and is was recently released from prison....

Nevertheless, I am pleased to announce that the City of Santa Rosa approved my application, and I picked up my CCW permit at the police station this morning. I AM LEGAL!!!

They are still waiting for the outcome of the Peruta case to determine how they will proceed with other applications, but I think that mine being issued is a good sign.

[Paladin]

Keeping in mind that my reason for applying may be more specific than others, as I have an order of protection for being a victim of an assault and the criminal has completed his sentence and is was recently released from prison....

Nevertheless, I am pleased to announce that the City of Santa Rosa approved my application, and I picked up my CCW permit at the police station this morning. I AM LEGAL!!!

They are still waiting for the outcome of the Peruta case to determine how they will proceed with other applications, but I think that mine being issued is a good sign.

Congrats!!!



Be sure to encourage others you know who may qualify to apply.

[violaron]

Keeping in mind that my reason for applying may be more specific than others, as I have an order of protection for being a victim of an assault and the criminal has completed his sentence and is was recently released from prison....

Nevertheless, I am pleased to announce that the City of Santa Rosa approved my application, and I picked up my CCW permit at the police station this morning. I AM LEGAL!!!

They are still waiting for the outcome of the Peruta case to determine how they will proceed with other applications, but I think that mine being issued is a good sign.

That calls for

Congrats!

[GillaFunk]

I wouldn't say its a good sign. I would say they are issuing because they have no other recourse, as you have a very specific need for a CCW with historical justification.

Either way, congrats.