Good Cause Statement

[grantar2]

Team I see a lot of GCS, and get a lot of feedback. I wanted to take a moment and stress a couple of points relative to OCSD. They want to issue permits, but they have to comply with H218. They are not making this hard, but you have to help.

Plan on providing supporting evidence of any claim you make. If you can't document it, don't use it.

If you claim to do business buying and selling on forums or websites as the matchmaker be prepared to show proof. Keep a copy of the ads you find when buying, and photo's of the product bought (a journal doesn't hurt), if you sell, same thing, save your post, date and place of sale.

If you freelance, keep your date, location, customer information even if your paid in cash.

If you work remote places keep receipts to show you really were in hole in the wall California.

If you go camping frequently, are off to BLM land, keep gas receipts, hotel receipts. Same if your traveling for work.

Your up in downtown L.A. those dinner receipts from 9pm aren't bad either, note on each what the work was. Parking lot receipts etc.

We need to understand they are going to ask for documentation, because god forbid we ever have to pull our weapon and it goes to court they are going to have to explain why under California's legal guidelines they gave us a permit.

Some here work in crappy areas at odd hours for cash. If that is your reason for wanting to carry concealed you need to think about how you can document that.

Bottom line seeing a lot more requests for documentation.

[Mauserguy]

[lawaia]

Team I see a lot of GCS, and get a lot of feedback. I wanted to take a moment and stress a couple of points relative to OCSD. They want to issue permits, but they have to comply with H218. They are not making this hard, but you have to help.

Plan on providing supporting evidence of any claim you make. If you can't document it, don't use it.

If you claim to do business buying and selling on forums or websites as the matchmaker be prepared to show proof. Keep a copy of the ads you find when buying, and photo's of the product bought (a journal doesn't hurt), if you sell, same thing, save your post, date and place of sale.

If you freelance, keep your date, location, customer information even if your paid in cash.

If you work remote places keep receipts to show you really were in hole in the wall California.

If you go camping frequently, are off to BLM land, keep gas receipts, hotel receipts. Same if your traveling for work.

Your up in downtown L.A. those dinner receipts from 9pm aren't bad either, note on each what the work was. Parking lot receipts etc.

We need to understand they are going to ask for documentation, because god forbid we ever have to pull our weapon and it goes to court they are going to have to explain why under California's legal guidelines they gave us a permit.

Some here work in crappy areas at odd hours for cash. If that is your reason for wanting to carry concealed you need to think about how you can document that.

Bottom line seeing a lot more requests for documentation.

I see what you're saying here. The rules are the rules, as set forth in each county (by the sheriff). And if you want a LTC, you'd better comply with those rules.

But the bolded is BS. They don't have to explain their decision to anyone. They may use it as an excuse, but the bottom line is that each Sheriff has full discretion to accept whatever they want as GC. The only requirement by the state is that they ask for one.

Also, the Sheriff is exempt from any liability should the licensed carrier use their firearm.

I bring this up, because we need to stop playing into their manipulation of the public by perpetuating these "myths". That is all.

[baggss]

H218?

You do all realize there is absolutely no reason Sheriff Hutchins could not choose to adopt a policy of "Self Defense = Good Cause" and move on. No one would have to worry about the GC statement being sufficient since all they would need to write in that box was "Self Defense".

It is, strictly speaking, entirely up to her to determine what her policy is and what allows her to sleep at night. It's a decision I do not envy any Sheriff or CoP in CA having to make. That being said, CA law protects them, as IAs, from lawsuits and prosecution if someone they issued to decided to go sideways with that carry piece. Statistically however, CCW holders nationwide are less likely to commit crimes than LEOs are, but they still must answer to the public in one way or another in the end, particularly Sheriffs who are elected vice appointed.

Now seriously, what is H218?

[psssniper]

Grantar is correct. Got a call from OCSD today and they wanted some documentation to back up my cause. I have four line items and each one needs either pictures or expanded verbiage. Overall he said I look good though.

[grantar2]

I see what you're saying here. The rules are the rules, as set forth in each county (by the sheriff). And if you want a LTC, you'd better comply with those rules.

But the bolded is BS. They don't have to explain their decision to anyone. They may use it as an excuse, but the bottom line is that each Sheriff has full discretion to accept whatever they want as GC. The only requirement by the state is that they ask for one.

Also, the Sheriff is exempt from any liability should the licensed carrier use their firearm.

I bring this up, because we need to stop playing into their manipulation of the public by perpetuating these "myths". That is all.

Your wrong. Liability is not an issue, they will have to defend their decision because they are acting on behalf of the state. The license is a state license. Well each county can have it's own rules, H218 is state regulation, and is in play by direction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, therefore is not a choice.

[grantar2]

Your wrong. Liability is not an issue, they will have to defend their decision because they are acting on behalf of the state. The license is a state license. Well each county can have it's own rules, H218 is state regulation, and is in play by direction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, therefore is not a choice.

I don't perpetuate myth. I make my living off the CCW business, I work with trainers, lawyers, and sheriffs, so well rules and info are subject to change, I am sharing with you legit info as it is today.

If you choose to ignore the info, or don't understand why they are asking, OK.

But remember although Sheriff Hutcheons is not up for election for a few years, she lives in the court of public opinion. A shooting case will get media scrutiny, and the process and judgement of the Sheriff's / Corners office will be challenged and they know it. Rather than just throwing out thou shalts, I like to explain the reasons behind it.

[grantar2]

[QUOTE=baggss;19330638]H218?

You do all realize there is absolutely no reason Sheriff Hutchins could not choose to adopt a policy of "Self Defense = Good Cause" and move on. No one would have to worry about the GC statement being sufficient since all they would need to write in that box was "Self Defense".

Did you read the 9th circuits direction. The debate belongs in the political section, but the court issued the direction to apply H218. As Hutcheons has said publicly her "job is to enforce the law, and obey the law" this was said when defining her response to following the courts order.

Well all of think SD should be sufficient and it's our right to be armed the court rulings disagree, and until the Calguns Foundation, CRPA, and NRA prevail at the Supreme Court well have to play by their rules.

[Capybara]

Really, you guys have to provide all of this BS? That sucks. I am extremely blessed to live in Ventura County where our Sheriff accepts SD as GC, period. Glad to see there are over 6k CCW holders in the OC but jeez, a lot of hoops you guys and gals have to jump through.

Someday I will live in a Constitutional Carry state.

[Paladin]

You do all realize there is absolutely no reason Sheriff Hutchins could not choose to adopt a policy of "Self Defense = Good Cause" and move on. No one would have to worry about the GC statement being sufficient since all they would need to write in that box was "Self Defense".

It is, strictly speaking, entirely up to her to determine what her policy is and what allows her to sleep at night. It's a decision I do not envy any Sheriff or CoP in CA having to make. That being said, CA law protects them, as IAs, from lawsuits and prosecution if someone they issued to decided to go sideways with that carry piece. Statistically however, CCW holders nationwide are less likely to commit crimes than LEOs are, but they still must answer to the public in one way or another in the end, particularly Sheriffs who are elected vice appointed.

The GC is not a bottleneck for most OC gunnies anymore, it just takes minor effort, which most aren't willing to put out.

If you look strictly by stats and treat OC like a SI state, OC itself should have between 70,000 - 135,000 CCWers vs. a lousy 7,000+ In the OC local activities forum I pointed this out and there's yet to be a reply to my suggestion they get organized to get more folks applying (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1278173). The single biggest impact we can have is by getting more OC residents to get CCWs. Just by getting them up to the national average of 6% of adults would TRIPLE the total # of CCWers in CA (and FLOOD their neighbor, LACO).

Yet no one is interested. Everyone wants someone else to do whatever needs to be done.

[Paladin]

Did you read the 9th circuits direction. The debate belongs in the political section, but the court issued the direction to apply H218. As Hutcheons has said publicly her "job is to enforce the law, and obey the law" this was said when defining her response to following the courts order.

Well all of think SD should be sufficient and it's our right to be armed the court rulings disagree, and until the Calguns Foundation, CRPA, and NRA prevail at the Supreme Court well have to play by their rules.

As I understand it, CA9 en banc said there was no "right" to CC, thus the GC requirement stands. It did NOT say that a CLEO could NOT accept SD = GC. If it had, Fresno, Placer, and a number of "dark green" counties' SOs are in violation of the latest Peruta decision.

[baggss]

Good Cause Statement

Did you read the 9th circuits direction. The debate belongs in the political section, but the court issued the direction to apply H218. As Hutcheons has said publicly her "job is to enforce the law, and obey the law" this was said when defining her response to following the courts order.

Please point me to the page and paragraph in the 9ths ruling where they state H218 must be applied or where they state Good Cause must be something other than Self Defense.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what H218 is.

[Paladin]

Your wrong. Liability is not an issue, they will have to defend their decision because they are acting on behalf of the state. The license is a state license. Well each county can have it's own rules, H218 is state regulation, and is in play by direction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, therefore is not a choice.

Did you read the 9th circuits direction. The debate belongs in the political section, but the court issued the direction to apply H218. As Hutcheons has said publicly her "job is to enforce the law, and obey the law" this was said when defining her response to following the courts order.

Not sure if you mean HR218, but that's the "Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act" of 2004: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/leosanew The Peruta case has NOTHING to do with LEOs and their ability to carry on or off the job, or post retirement.

Also, HR218 is NOT a "state regulation", but the federal House bill that became the federal LEOSA law. Federal law was NOT at issue in Peruta, California state CCW law was.

I don't perpetuate myth. I make my living off the CCW business, I work with trainers, lawyers, and sheriffs, so well rules and info are subject to change, I am sharing with you legit info as it is today.

Looking over the CA 9 en banc opinion (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20webcites.pdf), pp. 13 - 18 cover "California Firearms Regulation." I do NOT see any mention of "H218" (or HR218).

[DevilDawgJJ]

Please point me to the page and paragraph in the 9ths ruling where they state H218 must be applied or where they state Good Cause must be something other than Self Defense.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what H218 is.

I agree baggss. I'm still waiting for Dean to provide his metrics for GMC, from the 9th.

FL granted me right last week...maybe I'm not so morally bankrupt as Geoff thinks

[Dvrjon]

Your wrong. Liability is not an issue, they will have to defend their decision because they are acting on behalf of the state. The license is a state license. Well each county can have it's own rules, H218 is state regulation, and is in play by direction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, therefore is not a choice.

Please cite the CCR which establishes Policy 218 as a "regulation".

"Policy 218" is a draft CCW policy voluntarily adopted by many CCW issuers. OCSD provides it on their website: http://ocsd.org/civicax/filebank/blo...x?BlobID=24223

Other examples:

https://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F2AB0C4B-7010-4EB5-82A2-4C2DDA5DBC25/29946/Policy218CCWLicense052214WEBREADY.pdf

http://www.cityofmontclair.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6580

http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/docs/Sheriff/docs/CCW_Policy.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Michel's lawyers have a completely different take on the Peruta/Policy 218 issue: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...Good-Cause.pdf. (Page 4, third paragraph)

(And, for the policy wonks out there, here is the 1977 AG opinion referenced in Michel's letter, above: http://romandad.com/Youngermemo.pdf)