Sb 610 (ltc reform)

[watsonville]

So what does this mean I read the bill and understand it no liability insurance,written reason for denial,no training until approved, no excess fees .

So I take it if I meet all the requirements and have no reason for denial besides owning a small arsenal wouldnt that sorta entail approval or did gov brown just signing it for pr purpose any one else thinking this ??
Gov brown prison union owned since the 80's?

Support the nra

[wildhawker]

The bill makes no substantive changes and essentially re-states the limits on fees and process mandates that were existing in the law.

-Brandon

So what does this mean I read the bill and understand it no liability insurance,written reason for denial,no training until approved, no excess fees .

So I take it if I meet all the requirements and have no reason for denial besides owning a small arsenal wouldnt that sorta entail approval or did gov brown just signing it for pr purpose any one else thinking this ??
Gov brown prison union owned since the 80's?

Support the nra

[NeuTag]

So what does this mean I read the bill and understand it no liability insurance,written reason for denial,no training until approved, no excess fees .

So I take it if I meet all the requirements and have no reason for denial besides owning a small arsenal wouldnt that sorta entail approval or did gov brown just signing it for pr purpose any one else thinking this ??
Gov brown prison union owned since the 80's?

Support the nra

This was a good signing by Gov. Brown. It essentially standardizes procedures and costs. It unfortunately doesn't standardize reasons for a CCW permit. That is left up to the individual counties and their issuing entities.

[wildhawker]

This was a good signing by Gov. Brown. It essentially standardizes procedures and costs. It unfortunately doesn't standardize reasons for a CCW permit. That is left up to the individual counties and their issuing entities.

The standardization existed prior to SB 610; this bill puts the law into language even sheriffs can understand.

-Brandon

[bwiese]

The standardization existed prior to SB 610; this bill puts the law into language even sheriffs can understand.

-Brandon

Always a useful thing, since they've repeatedly confirmed they have thick heads.

It also puts it "all in one place", and puts ithe issue "on the radar" as well.

[Jason P]

I signed up for the sunshine initiative in LA county, what now?

[Merc1138]

Always a useful thing, since they've repeatedly confirmed they have thick heads.

It also puts it "all in one place", and puts ithe issue "on the radar" as well.

So from what I read, it just forces them to approve or deny your GC statement before making you pay any money, and removes liability insurance requirements like Alameda county demands. Does it do anything else about mandated visits to a shrink, polygraph tests, etc.?

[Wild Squid]

So once this bill takes effect (now? next year?) I guess we can apply all we want? Flood them with paperwork? I mean... it won't cost us anything to try will it? Why not try 50 different times with different good cause statements?

Well then you'll just save the Sheriff's office some money on not having to buy toilet paper, because when they run out, they'll just use our applications to wipe their arse with

[taperxz]

So from what I read, it just forces them to approve or deny your GC statement before making you pay any money, and removes liability insurance requirements like Alameda county demands. Does it do anything else about mandated visits to a shrink, polygraph tests, etc.?

Yes, it does, If a psych is mandated by the sheriff, it must be done with the same doctor who performs the same duties on the rest of the sheriffs staff. It also states that this can be done for no more than $150 max to you.

Polygraphs i don't think are a part of the process.

[Merc1138]

Yes, it does, If a psych is mandated by the sheriff, it must be done with the same doctor who performs the same duties on the rest of the sheriffs staff. It also states that this can be done for no more than $150 max to you.

Polygraphs i don't think are a part of the process.

Hmm, would be interesting if we could get CGF to provide a plain text version of what the LTC requirements are statewide now. Just going through Alameda County's current policy they demand $1,000,000 of insurance, self paid visit to a shrink, possible polygraph test(frankly I think polygraphs are BS), 3 letters of recommendation(so I have to make other people know my business?), medical records, handful of waivers(I think part of that has to do with the range qualification), no specification of exactly what the qualification test requires, etc.

[dotalchemy]

From a quick read through of the bill, it doesn't seem to touch on training fees - only application and psych testing skills.

I'm guessing (from my quick read) that this bill won't affect the redonkulous training fees associated with San Francisco's LTC application?

I like that it states no training needs to be paid for prior to determination of good cause though. Perhaps I shall work my way a little through the SF application.

[MudCamper]

Yes, it does, If a psych is mandated by the sheriff, it must be done with the same doctor who performs the same duties on the rest of the sheriffs staff.

But that's not necessarily a good thing. A little bird once told me a story about how a small PD psych doc passed or approved new hires based on secret cues from the chief. I imagine most polygraph tests work the same way.

[wildhawker]

Always a useful thing, since they've repeatedly confirmed they have thick heads.

It also puts it "all in one place", and puts ithe issue "on the radar" as well.

Respectfully, the issue's been front and center thanks to our Initiative. We'll be cranking up the heat in about... 2 weeks...

From a quick read through of the bill, it doesn't seem to touch on training fees - only application and psych testing skills.

I'm guessing (from my quick read) that this bill won't affect the redonkulous training fees associated with San Francisco's LTC application?

I like that it states no training needs to be paid for prior to determination of good cause though. Perhaps I shall work my way a little through the SF application.

It really doesn't change anything except re-state the existing law such that recalcitrant law enforcement can understand it. SB 610 confirms the very policy interpretations that CGF has promulgated for nearly 2 years, when we took up the compliance actions.

-Brandon

[Decoligny]

So from what I read, it just forces them to approve or deny your GC statement before making you pay any money, and removes liability insurance requirements like Alameda county demands. Does it do anything else about mandated visits to a shrink, polygraph tests, etc.?

This is what Kern County has been doing for a long time, even though the law currently mandates payment upon submission of the application.

I didn't have to pay a penny until I was notified that my good cause had been approved, and then I had to take the training and bring the certificate and a check to the Sheriff's office and then get livescan fingerprinted there.

[wildhawker]

So from what I read, it just forces them to approve or deny your GC statement before making you pay any money, and removes liability insurance requirements like Alameda county demands. Does it do anything else about mandated visits to a shrink, polygraph tests, etc.?

No, the fees and collection schedule are the same.

-Brandon