Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-19-2018, 10:25 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,028
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default van Nieuwenhuyzen v. Sniff CGF FPC (CCW CARRY CASE)

https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/sniff

Last edited by taperxz; 10-19-2018 at 10:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-19-2018, 10:27 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,028
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Sheriff Sniff of Riverside, refuses to give legal residents a CCW based on the fact that they are not a CITIZEN (LEGAL RESIDENT WITH GREEN CARD) of the United States.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:32 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,857
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Cue grumpy cat... in 3... 2...
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:42 AM
faris1984's Avatar
faris1984 faris1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,162
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Well in Sacramento CCW is must be a citizen.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-19-2018, 1:59 PM
riderr riderr is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,995
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Probably, I am not reading it correctly, but CCW license can only be issued to USC

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=25610.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-19-2018, 2:05 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,829
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
Probably, I am not reading it correctly, but CCW license can only be issued to USC

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=25610.
No, that's the transport section.

CCW is
Quote:
26150.


(a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:

(1) The applicant is of good moral character.

(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the county, or the applicant’s principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business.
No mention of citizenship.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-19-2018, 2:10 PM
riderr riderr is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,995
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
No, that's the transport section.
.
That's right. However, if one can't transport the gun legally, how is it possible to carry it, then? Or more interestingly, how the person in question was able to bring the handgun home from FFL?

Last edited by riderr; 10-19-2018 at 2:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-19-2018, 7:07 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,690
iTrader: 159 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
That's right. However, if one can't transport the gun legally, how is it possible to carry it, then? Or more interestingly, how the person in question was able to bring the handgun home from FFL?

One doesn't have to be a citizen in order to buy ot transport a gun.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1542770
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-19-2018, 2:50 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

There is quite a bit of history between Sniff and some Calguns members who are now in other gun organizations and who no longer post much here. It's a very long story, but my personal opinion is that this case is misguided and that it won't achieve anything good for the Riverside county no matter which way it goes.

The "may issue" in CA is what we have from the legislators. The proper fix is to get the law changed (won't happen in CA), or to have CA-9 or SCOTUS rule that carry is a right and thus force some sort of "shall issue" the way it happened in CA-7 with Moore.

Going after sheriffs is not going to convert "may issue" into "shall issue." What it can do instead is mess up the existing system. This is particularly troublesome in any "green" county, where people are getting CCW licenses.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-19-2018, 7:00 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,798
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Going after sheriffs is not going to convert "may issue" into "shall issue." What it can do instead is mess up the existing system. This is particularly troublesome in any "green" county, where people are getting CCW licenses.
I don't know anything about Sheriff Sniff but I agree with your point 100%.
__________________
learn to code
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-19-2018, 8:19 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,028
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I don't know anything about Sheriff Sniff but I agree with your point 100%.
Then you drink kool aid and misinformed
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-19-2018, 9:03 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Then you drink kool aid and misinformed
Riverside IS light green. That's what he was agreeing with.

Who is misinformed here?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-20-2018, 10:40 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,028
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Riverside IS light green. That's what he was agreeing with.

Who is misinformed here?
Green light for a particular class. I supposed you agree that the the roster is a good thing and hey! Cops can buy off roster so i guess the roster is no big deal?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-19-2018, 7:09 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,690
iTrader: 159 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
There is quite a bit of history between Sniff and some Calguns members who are now in other gun organizations and who no longer post much here. It's a very long story, but my personal opinion is that this case is misguided and that it won't achieve anything good for the Riverside county no matter which way it goes.

The "may issue" in CA is what we have from the legislators. The proper fix is to get the law changed (won't happen in CA), or to have CA-9 or SCOTUS rule that carry is a right and thus force some sort of "shall issue" the way it happened in CA-7 with Moore.

Going after sheriffs is not going to convert "may issue" into "shall issue." What it can do instead is mess up the existing system. This is particularly troublesome in any "green" county, where people are getting CCW licenses.
But you can't sue the state here, so you sue the sheriff. They're the ones issuing (or not issuing) carry licenses.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other guns here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1542770
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-19-2018, 8:17 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,028
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
There is quite a bit of history between Sniff and some Calguns members who are now in other gun organizations and who no longer post much here. It's a very long story, but my personal opinion is that this case is misguided and that it won't achieve anything good for the Riverside county no matter which way it goes.

The "may issue" in CA is what we have from the legislators. The proper fix is to get the law changed (won't happen in CA), or to have CA-9 or SCOTUS rule that carry is a right and thus force some sort of "shall issue" the way it happened in CA-7 with Moore.

Going after sheriffs is not going to convert "may issue" into "shall issue." What it can do instead is mess up the existing system. This is particularly troublesome in any "green" county, where people are getting CCW licenses.
Typical biased reaction! Fanboy much?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-19-2018, 8:41 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Typical biased reaction! Fanboy much?
C'mon, read the rest of my posts.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-19-2018, 4:20 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is a easy win. Riverside will likely revise its policies mooting the case prior to any major litigation. The equal protection argument is slam dunk. There have been about a dozen wins on this issue already.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-19-2018, 5:16 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
This is a easy win. Riverside will likely revise its policies mooting the case prior to any major litigation. The equal protection argument is slam dunk. There have been about a dozen wins on this issue already.
Which is why I see this more of a settling of a personal score, and nothing to do with any strategy.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-19-2018, 8:18 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,028
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
This is a easy win. Riverside will likely revise its policies mooting the case prior to any major litigation. The equal protection argument is slam dunk. There have been about a dozen wins on this issue already.
Agreed! If anyone knows about winning 2A cases.... it’s You!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-19-2018, 5:06 PM
Fjold's Avatar
Fjold Fjold is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Bakersfield
Posts: 21,102
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

But Sheriff Sniff is a Calguns darling! A strong supporter of the Second Amendment and individual gun rights according to the power that be.
__________________
Frank

One rifle, one planet, Holland's 375

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/Fjold/member8325.png

Life Member NRA, CRPA and SAF
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-19-2018, 5:13 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Sheriff Sniff is more of a half-and-half - some people praise him, others can't stand him.

I have seen and talked to both groups and have met sheriff Sniff on several occasions personally. He operates in a tough political and financial environment, so that is something that the latter group doesn't recognize. On the other hand, he could get rid of reference letters and have a bit more streamlined CCW process, which is something that the former group doesn't recognize.

Overall, my impression has been that he is a good friend of the NRA and of the 2A, but also that he is an elected official who isn't going to push the envelope by accepting vanilla "self defense" as the good cause.

No matter what people say, sheriffs who create virtual shall-issue are prodding the legislators into centralizing the CCW process and requirements. We've already seen some CCW requirements being tightened by the Sacramento...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-19-2018, 8:24 PM
Eat Dirt's Avatar
Eat Dirt Eat Dirt is offline
CGSSA Specialist
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Riverside County / Hemet
Posts: 9,813
iTrader: 286 / 100%
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
But Sheriff Sniff is a Calguns darling! A strong supporter of the Second Amendment and individual gun rights according to the power that be.
If you're in his ' Good 'O Boys ' club
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------

Tumbled BRASS For Sale

Just check my Long Running Thread : http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=262832
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-19-2018, 8:56 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eat Dirt View Post
If you're in his ' Good 'O Boys ' club
A lot of people got their CCW who are not part of the club.

If you're going to find fault, I suggest you look at the areas that are both under Sniff's control and could be done better. Letters of reference are in that general direction...

Riverside is "light green" on the map. The process has been significantly improved recently. We can't treat it as "yellow" or "red" just because CA is not a shall-issue state.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-19-2018, 5:42 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 974
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Vote for Bianco in two weeks and the problems mentioned above could go away. Sniff is better than many other sheriffs but Bianco is better than Sniff.

Excuse the spelling.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-19-2018, 9:01 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
Vote for Bianco in two weeks and the problems mentioned above could go away. Sniff is better than many other sheriffs but Bianco is better than Sniff.
The true test for any new sheriff will be how they navigate funding issues that come with political strings attached. There is also talk about CA legislators yanking all CCW licenses issued by sheriffs who use virtual shall issue.

We live in CA and the playground is full of minefields.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-19-2018, 5:55 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

An infringement is an infringement, regardless of who is doing it. To defend someone like Sniff (who was endorsed by both the NRA and the CRPA) rather than hold him accountable to a standard ALL issuing agencies should achieve, undermines the very rights we want respected.
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-19-2018, 8:21 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,028
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
An infringement is an infringement, regardless of who is doing it. To defend someone like Sniff (who was endorsed by both the NRA and the CRPA) rather than hold him accountable to a standard ALL issuing agencies should achieve, undermines the very rights we want respected.
Yep
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-19-2018, 8:52 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
An infringement is an infringement, regardless of who is doing it. To defend someone like Sniff (who was endorsed by both the NRA and the CRPA) rather than hold him accountable to a standard ALL issuing agencies should achieve, undermines the very rights we want respected.
You can blame Sniff for CCW situation in CA as much as you can blame him for the AWB in CA - infringement is an infringement, right?

Sniff could do things a bit differently, but he also must get his funding from a group of people who don't look kindly on CCW. Could he do things differently? I'm pretty sure he could. Can we find fault in his current stance? I'm pretty sure we could. Has he added staff and expedited the process significantly? Yes he has.

The situation in CA is way more nuanced than just "infringement" and " 'murica."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-19-2018, 9:40 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
You can blame Sniff for CCW situation in CA as much as you can blame him for the AWB in CA - infringement is an infringement, right?

Sniff could do things a bit differently, but he also must get his funding from a group of people who don't look kindly on CCW. Could he do things differently? I'm pretty sure he could. Can we find fault in his current stance? I'm pretty sure we could. Has he added staff and expedited the process significantly? Yes he has.

The situation in CA is way more nuanced than just "infringement" and " 'murica."
Oh, so the state made Stan Sniff deny a legal resident alien?

(That would be a no. Sniff is wholly responsible for how his department administers his concealed carry license policy. )

And yeah, any Sheriff that holds his right hand in the air and his left on the Bible and swears to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America and the state of California and enforces any subsection of the California penal code regulating the ownership of so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines is a liar who would benefit from a piping hot coat of tar and fuffy downy feathers, before being run out of town on a rail. (Any of their supporters could use a boot in the *** too.)
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-20-2018, 11:57 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Oh, so the state made Stan Sniff deny a legal resident alien?
The real issue with Sniff has been about letters of reference and additional paperwork that he required of the CCW applicants. It's been going on for a decade or more. This particular case seems to be just a way to push him around.

To answer your question, you are correct that it's his choice. He will almost certainly moot it, the way Wolfwood described it above.

So, what's the point of filing a case instead of working with the department to update policies? It's most likely that the department wasn't responsive enough and that several pro-gun groups wanted to make a point. The unwillingness to cooperate is most likely due to personality conflicts that go way back. It's a matter of sending a message.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of this, but looking at it from the outside and trying to frame it as some sort of 2A stance is silly. This has almost nothing to do with 2A or CCW in Riverside. It's a Richard measuring contest...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-20-2018, 9:03 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,028
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The real issue with Sniff has been about letters of reference and additional paperwork that he required of the CCW applicants. It's been going on for a decade or more. This particular case seems to be just a way to push him around.

To answer your question, you are correct that it's his choice. He will almost certainly moot it, the way Wolfwood described it above.

So, what's the point of filing a case instead of working with the department to update policies? It's most likely that the department wasn't responsive enough and that several pro-gun groups wanted to make a point. The unwillingness to cooperate is most likely due to personality conflicts that go way back. It's a matter of sending a message.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of this, but looking at it from the outside and trying to frame it as some sort of 2A stance is silly. This has almost nothing to do with 2A or CCW in Riverside. It's a Richard measuring contest...
Sniff is a friend of the NRA. Why haven’t they convinced him of the error in his ways?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-26-2018, 10:38 PM
TurboS600's Avatar
TurboS600 TurboS600 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,114
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Sniff could do things a bit differently, but he also must get his funding from a group of people who don't look kindly on CCW.
NOT true. The BoS had a meeting and voted 4:1 on a referendum to ask Sheriff Sniff to accept self defense as a valid good cause for the issuance of a CCW. I know because I was at that meeting and testified before the board.

It did not make a world of difference at that time (6-7 years ago). However, he now has a 98% success rate with his applicants. When I was issued my first CCW in Riverside county there were fewer than 400 valid 2-year permits in Riverside County (9 years ago). Today there are more than 3,600 valid permits in Riverside County. Yes, they HAVE ramped it up a bit. The only one in the CCW office when I first applied was Sgt Aguirre. All by himself.

I'm not a Sniff apologist but I believe that he is doing what he can with what he has. In the past few years he has made HUUUUGE strides in easing up the process. Could he improve? Maybe. But you have no idea what it takes to run a department that size. SO go ahead and apply for your permit and see what happens. You just never know.

You may be pleasantly surprised as I was.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher Space Chimp View Post
Where can I get a pair..?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViPER395 View Post
I like it colored
Quote:
Originally Posted by SquidBilly View Post
I became mesmerized by a thick black shaft.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-27-2018, 9:00 AM
alex1975 alex1975 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 76
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboS600 View Post
NOT true. The BoS had a meeting and voted 4:1 on a referendum to ask Sheriff Sniff to accept self defense as a valid good cause for the issuance of a CCW. I know because I was at that meeting and testified before the board.

It did not make a world of difference at that time (6-7 years ago). However, he now has a 98% success rate with his applicants. When I was issued my first CCW in Riverside county there were fewer than 400 valid 2-year permits in Riverside County (9 years ago). Today there are more than 3,600 valid permits in Riverside County. Yes, they HAVE ramped it up a bit. The only one in the CCW office when I first applied was Sgt Aguirre. All by himself.

I'm not a Sniff apologist but I believe that he is doing what he can with what he has. In the past few years he has made HUUUUGE strides in easing up the process. Could he improve? Maybe. But you have no idea what it takes to run a department that size. SO go ahead and apply for your permit and see what happens. You just never know.

You may be pleasantly surprised as I was.
The process improved. But it still has some issues that are not budget related: 1. The reference letters. It's nobody business that I have a concealed handgun. 2. The limitation of the gun caliber. I wanted to add a Tokarev, and was refused.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-28-2018, 11:12 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,440
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alex1975 View Post
The process improved. But it still has some issues that are not budget related: 1. The reference letters. It's nobody business that I have a concealed handgun. 2. The limitation of the gun caliber. I wanted to add a Tokarev, and was refused.
These are completely valid points against Sniff's issuance policy (and I raise them often), but this lawsuit is addressing something completely different and at "politically convenient time."

If it walks like a duck, ...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-21-2018, 9:44 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,192
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
An infringement is an infringement, regardless of who is doing it. To defend someone like Sniff (who was endorsed by both the NRA and the CRPA) rather than hold him accountable to a standard ALL issuing agencies should achieve, undermines the very rights we want respected.
As I explain in the "Preliminary Matter" section of my thread on getting a CoCoCo SO CCW, CA CCWs have NOTHING to do with our 2nd A RKBA. That's what the current state of the law is according to CA9 en banc in Peruta and SCOTUS did not take issue with that. CA CCWs are issued according to CA statutory law, nothing else.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1482924

While this state of affairs may change with future court decisions, for better or worse, that's reality right now. If OC is determined to be "the Right," then restricting CCWs will clearly not be "an infringement."
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:50 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,028
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
As I explain in the "Preliminary Matter" section of my thread on getting a CoCoCo SO CCW, CA CCWs have NOTHING to do with our 2nd A RKBA. That's what the current state of the law is according to CA9 en banc in Peruta and SCOTUS did not take issue with that. CA CCWs are issued according to CA statutory law, nothing else.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1482924

While this state of affairs may change with future court decisions, for better or worse, that's reality right now. If OC is determined to be "the Right," then restricting CCWs will clearly not be "an infringement."
Being a permanent resident with a green card is not a disqualifying factor in this state to get a CCW. Eligibility, good moral character and good cause are. This is an issue
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-21-2018, 2:05 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,192
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Being a permanent resident with a green card is not a disqualifying factor in this state to get a CCW. Eligibility, good moral character and good cause are. This is an issue
If you read my post that you quoted and the post that it quoted, or the "Preliminary Matter" at the posted link, you'd see they're all saying CA's statutory CCW permit laws have NOTHING to do with our 2nd A RKBA. That's the off topic issue CitaDeL brought up. I was trying to clear up that confusion.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-21-2018, 6:39 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
As I explain in the "Preliminary Matter" section of my thread on getting a CoCoCo SO CCW, CA CCWs have NOTHING to do with our 2nd A RKBA. That's what the current state of the law is according to CA9 en banc in Peruta and SCOTUS did not take issue with that. CA CCWs are issued according to CA statutory law, nothing else.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1482924

While this state of affairs may change with future court decisions, for better or worse, that's reality right now. If OC is determined to be "the Right," then restricting CCWs will clearly not be "an infringement."
Restricting 'CCWs' for whom? Again, it is discriminatory to refuse to issue to legal resident aliens and if there is no OC and no lawful CC option - it is an injury to the rights of the applicant.
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-23-2018, 2:51 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,192
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Restricting 'CCWs' for whom? Again, it is discriminatory to refuse to issue to legal resident aliens and if there is no OC and no lawful CC option - it is an injury to the rights of the applicant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
An infringement is an infringement, regardless of who is doing it. To defend someone like Sniff (who was endorsed by both the NRA and the CRPA) rather than hold him accountable to a standard ALL issuing agencies should achieve, undermines the very rights we want respected.
The bolded is the language of the 2nd A. I'm merely pointing out what CA9 en banc has held: that CA's CCW permit system is not protected by the 2nd A. It does not invoke the 2nd A's "right" that "shall not be infringed." For some reason you keep trying to cloud this issue. While you personally may believe that CA's CCW scheme should fall under 2nd A, and SCOTUS may eventually make a holding that somehow ties the two together, that's not reality at this point.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-20-2018, 8:32 AM
ulmapache's Avatar
ulmapache ulmapache is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My 2 cents worth...seems to me that it should be mandatory requirement to be a citizen to legally purchase or carry firearms...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:30 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.