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 > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 03-30-2015, 2:37 PM
Trout_fear_me's Avatar
Trout_fear_me Trout_fear_me is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 1,001
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
That's good info. I wonder if such things (her Good Cause stance) should be communicated over PM rather than as a general post? That was suggested in another thread and that person ended up deleted his post.

Just a thought.

On another note, I think I'm going to give Artemis a try.
Two thumbs up for Artemis. I've gone through multiple courses with them. Arranging another round of training hopefully next month.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 03-30-2015, 2:37 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
The Sheriff's Policy following the grant of en banc is simply not quite correct. ...<snip>...
She's exercising her discretion as she sees fit. Whether we think it's correct or not is moot. Save your keystrokes

.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 03-30-2015, 2:38 PM
glock21sf glock21sf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
I don't think "wise post" and "Doheny" have been used in a sentence on this site before.
I guess there is a first time for everything...
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 03-30-2015, 2:52 PM
JimGenz76's Avatar
JimGenz76 JimGenz76 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 951
iTrader: 93 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=glock21sf;16062822]


to quote him "I'm Jewish and I'm worried about the terroism in Europe... QUOTE]

Do you have to be Jewish to be worried about the terrorism in Europe? I'm somewhat catholic and worried about terrorism. That should be just a good a reason as any. Right?

Last edited by JimGenz76; 03-30-2015 at 3:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 03-30-2015, 3:06 PM
glock21sf glock21sf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=JimGenz76;16062895]
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock21sf View Post


to quote him "I'm Jewish and I'm worried about the terroism in Europe... QUOTE]

Do you have to be Jewish to be worried about the terrorism in Europe? I'm somewhat catholic and worried about terrorism. That should be just a good a reason as any. Right?
sure. any reason that makes you have a fear for your personal safety. You are alone while you walk through the park, Your job is located in a high crime area and you have been feeling unsafe in that neighborhood. You visit your grandma that lives in L.A. and drive through high violent crime rates to reach her. (105 freeway) etc, etc. Every single one of us can describe situations that make us feel that we are at higher risk of personal attack than the general population.

With the passage of Prop 47 and AB 109, we have all been put at risk by our legislatures in Sacramento and the uninformed voter.

That statement should be good cause in the entire State of California

Last edited by glock21sf; 03-30-2015 at 3:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 03-30-2015, 4:25 PM
xreaperx xreaperx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 543
iTrader: 13 / 93%
Default

Just emailed to me by my investigator

Dear Applicant,



Due to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vote to rehear the Peruta Case, you will need to submit a “Good Cause Statement” along with supporting documentation. Please email me this information so that I can submit your file for approval. See below for additional information.



Supporting Documentation Checklist


 Judicial Officers and Commissioners

• Copy of Bar Card

• Court identification





 Reserve Peace Officers & Sworn Officers (current and former)

• Officers and Reserves must obtain a letter verifying service or departure in good standing



 Federal Law Enforcement (current and former)

• Credentials

• Written confirmation from your Agency stating you work in a law enforcement capacity or departed in good standing



 Transporting or protection of valuable property

• Invoices, contracts or inventory of items moving

• Other verifiable documentation proving you are personally transporting valuables



 Transportation of Cash

• Bank statements

• Deposit receipts

• Letter from the bank specifying that you, personally, make cash deposits and or withdrawals (including amounts and frequency of transactions)



 Victim of Crime and or Threats:

• Police Reports

• Court Documents

• Active Restraining Order

• Other verifiable documentation that the applicant is the subject of threats



 Other:

• Any pertinent, verifiable documentation to support your reason for a CCW permit such as:

Business Licenses, Guard/Exposed cards, PI License, Contractors License, etc.



***Note: The items requested above are not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Additional documentation may be required for verification purposes throughout the application process.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 03-30-2015, 4:35 PM
JDW67 JDW67 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,000
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Damn...I don't qualify under any of these statements.

This contradicts the Artemis comments.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 03-30-2015, 4:39 PM
glock21sf glock21sf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is nothing new and Policy 218 was written along time ago. The last reason could be anything:


• Any pertinent, verifiable documentation to support your reason for a CCW permit such as:

Business Licenses, Guard/Exposed cards, PI License, Contractors License, etc.



***Note: The items requested above are not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Additional documentation may be required for verification purposes throughout the application process.

This is inline with Artemis

Last edited by glock21sf; 03-30-2015 at 4:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 03-30-2015, 5:03 PM
JDW67 JDW67 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,000
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

I applaud your enthusiasm, but Policy 218 is the reason most of us CAN"T get a ccw.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 03-30-2015, 5:06 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,090
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW67 View Post
I applaud your enthusiasm, but Policy 218 is the reason most of us CAN"T get a ccw.
I'm a pessimist by nature, but, with respect, it's the reason you formerly couldn't get a permit, and it MAY be the reason you can't get one now.

Also with respect, if you go through the motions with the "I can't get a permit" vibe, you certainly won't get one.

Fixate on the catch all you CERTAINLY fit that one. Start thinking about how to articulate something more than self defense, specifics, WHY, WHERE, etc.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 03-30-2015, 5:25 PM
glock21sf glock21sf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
I'm a pessimist by nature, but, with respect, it's the reason you formerly couldn't get a permit, and it MAY be the reason you can't get one now.

Also with respect, if you go through the motions with the "I can't get a permit" vibe, you certainly won't get one.

Fixate on the catch all you CERTAINLY fit that one. Start thinking about how to articulate something more than self defense, specifics, WHY, WHERE, etc.
This +1000
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 03-30-2015, 5:55 PM
herdafer's Avatar
herdafer herdafer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Alta Loma
Posts: 87
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xreaperx View Post
 Other:

• Any pertinent, verifiable documentation to support your reason for a CCW permit such as:

Business Licenses, Guard/Exposed cards, PI License, Contractors License, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post

Fixate on the catch all you CERTAINLY fit that one. Start thinking about how to articulate something more than self defense, specifics, WHY, WHERE, etc.
I agree with Citadel. If Business License and Contractors License is listed then I believe anyone could come up with a pertinent reason to obtain a CCW in OC. What about being a Teacher, Professor, Engineer, Architect, Doctor, Nurse, Psychologist, Psychiatrist, Dentist, Occupational Therapist, Pharmacist, Real Estate Agent, Real Estate Broker, Court Reporter or Veterinarian? I believe all of those professions require a state license like a Contractor does, and every one of them could easily be in danger due to their profession.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 03-30-2015, 6:47 PM
sl0re10 sl0re10 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,954
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
I had one on one time with Carona...well...before his trouble. We discussed CCW, and he told me he wanted to accept "self defense", but in his opinion, that changed "may issue" to "shall issue", and that was not the law.

He needed an articulable, specific reason.

He was pro CCW, just to provide perspective.
Yeah; I've read examples of statements that have been accepted in California and typically the reason need not be great. Re: first person to my office in the morning. Over 2 million in equipment that fits in a 10x10 room / easy to carry off.

But thou shalt not say to 'defend others'.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 03-30-2015, 7:01 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,749
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
She's exercising her discretion as she sees fit. Whether we think it's correct or not is moot. Save your keystrokes

.
Go back and read what I wrote. What I meant to convey was:

1. In my opinion the reasoning of the majority panel in Peruta was correct' that being that no other showing for good cause need be made other than self defense. If that be true, then her published policy in Constitutionally infirm and therefor incorrect. Or do you think the sheriff may exercise her discretion in an unconstitutional manner?

2. Is there currently any authority clearly requiring the sheriff to accept personal self defense without any higher showing as good cause? I don't think there is.

3. But what I was commenting on was the fact that her policy statement is flat wrong, where it says that the panel decision may not be cited. That is a half truth. It may not be cited as precedence or authority in any court, but may be cited in other forums such as before the Board of Supervisors or the court of public opinion.

4. Why the Peruta panel's decision is not binding on the sheriff, if she finds its reasoning persuasive she may exercise her discretion as though it remained authoritative.

Last edited by Chewy65; 03-30-2015 at 8:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 03-30-2015, 8:18 PM
Rsenal7's Avatar
Rsenal7 Rsenal7 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Orange County
Posts: 81
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My LTC is good until Feb 2017, but I'm already figuring out how to renew it. I left the house unarmed today, and I felt totally naked without my firearm. I've been carrying daily for a little over a month now.

One possibility for me is, I'm the manager and key holder at work, and I have to respond to the building anytime the alarm goes off. It can happen at all hours, one time I had to respond at 3am to an alarm. I realize it's the police's duty to respond and clear the building, but I still have to show up and let them in. The last time, I actually beat the police to the scene, even though the alarm company notified us at the same time. So I'm sitting in an empty parking lot by myself at 3am with the building alarm going off, waiting for the cops to show up. It turned out the fax machine spit out a bunch of papers and set off the motion detector.

Anyways what do you think? Is that good cause?
__________________

Last edited by Rsenal7; 03-30-2015 at 8:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 03-30-2015, 8:20 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Go back and read what I wrote. What I meant to convey was:

1. In my opinion the reasoning of the majority panel in Peruta was correct' that being that no other showing for good cause need be made other than self defense. If that be true, then her published policy in Constitutionally infirm and therefor incorrect. Or do you think the sheriff may exercise her discretion in an unconstitutional manner?

2. Is there currently any authority clearly requiring the sheriff to accept personal self defense without any higher showing as good cause? I don't think there is.

3. But what I was commenting on was the fact that her policy statement is flat wrong, where it says that the panel decision may not be cited. That is a half truth. It may not be cited as precedence or authority in any court, but may be cited in other forums such as before the Board of Supervisors or the court of public opinion.

4. Why the Peruta panel's decision is not binding on the sheriff, if she finds its reasoning persuasive she may exercise her discretion as though it remained authoritative.
Go back and read what I said. She can do whatever she wants; she has and she will. You're interpretation of her interpretation doesn't matter.

Again, save your keystrokes and armchair lawyering.

.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 03-30-2015, 8:29 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default OCSD's Position on CCW in Response to Peruta En Banc

The website was updated this afternoon. The bold is what was added today, the text in the brackets is what was deleted.


Quote:
Prospective applicants are encouraged to attend their scheduled appointments and submit their CCW applications for consideration. Licenses issued [Applications approved] after Thursday, March 26, 2015, are subject to the good cause requirement in OCSD Policy 218.


.

Last edited by Doheny; 03-30-2015 at 8:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-30-2015, 8:46 PM
Section 101's Avatar
Section 101 Section 101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW67 View Post
Damn...I don't qualify under any of these statements.

This contradicts the Artemis comments.
Get a print out of all the crime in OC and use it as you good cause. If he asks say when the list is gone your need is gone.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-30-2015, 8:50 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW67 View Post
Damn...I don't qualify under any of these statements.

This contradicts the Artemis comments.

Yeah, it's going to take more than a wink and a nod and telling them you (we) get scared at night.

.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 03-30-2015, 9:18 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 101 View Post
Get a print out of all the crime in OC and use it as you good cause. If he asks say when the list is gone your need is gone.

Said the guy from Sac.

.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 03-30-2015, 9:21 PM
grantar2's Avatar
grantar2 grantar2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 3,569
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=JimGenz76;16062895]
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock21sf View Post


to quote him "I'm Jewish and I'm worried about the terroism in Europe... QUOTE]

Do you have to be Jewish to be worried about the terrorism in Europe? I'm somewhat catholic and worried about terrorism. That should be just a good a reason as any. Right?
Your reason is the terrorists in the middle east keep telling their followers in the US to kill the Crusaders you know payback is a Bi--ch and you know they think all Catholics are Crusaders after all even Obama mentioned it.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 03-30-2015, 9:28 PM
grantar2's Avatar
grantar2 grantar2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 3,569
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I feel much better. When I applied for my permit I mentioned that despite living in one of the safest communities in America, I had a drug house across the street from me. (I provided the address) noted that it had been busted 8 times (3 multi agency) in 24 months and the cliental had been coming up the city owned hill into my secluded front yard to cross over. The investigator knew the local. As of last week it was up to 11 busts in 30 months and there were 3 arrests, several car break ins, and two cars stolen according to spot crime.com. In fact if you haven't, sign up for SpotCrime.com it's free and really interesting what is going on around you.

In my case the distributor across the street is reasonably polite, but you never know when the runners coming in an out at odd hours are going to be a problem. The only good side is like 9 out of 11 busts have had a K9 unit.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 03-30-2015, 9:38 PM
grantar2's Avatar
grantar2 grantar2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 3,569
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
The website was updated this afternoon. The bold is what was added today, the text in the brackets is what was deleted.






.
If the Sheriff were of the mind to reject I don't think she would encourage people to continue to apply. I think she tipped her hand at the end of the year when she said her department had issued 3,500 permits and had not had one problem. The fact that she continues to have support for the board of supervisors, and has the budget doesn't hurt.

I will be surprised if the scrutiny doesn't go up just a little, but no much. I think most of us to want to bear the responsibility and liability this state puts on us to exercise our right to carry are reasonably able to articulate a reason we feel we need to.

I think we need to give her time to codify where she wants to go with this. I for one am pleased with her initial response to the ruling, and even though this hick up will delay my wife obtaining her permit, I think we need to stay supportive of a group that has worked hard to fill as many permits as they can.

When we complained about the hold up on finger printing we got live scan centers of our choice. We have gone from 3 trainers to more than 20.

I have more problem with local shooting ranges where I am a annual member charging me extra to practice drawing from a holster and then only during hours I should be at work, than what the Sheriff is doing so far.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 03-30-2015, 11:00 PM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The more I consider this, especially in light of sf's information with the investigator, the more it makes sense.

People tend to forget that Hutchens is still facing her own case in McKay. It is essentially a clone of Peruta. It has been heard, and the decision stayed pending resolution of Peruta, Richards, Chovan, and Baker. Hutchens has always maintained that her policies (pre-Peruta, post, and current) are "just following the law." There are those of us who think she could issue for SD and still be following the law. Obviously, several other Sheriffs do. But for some reason, she leans toward a more conservative view of what the law allows.

Keeping in mind that she is still a defendant in her own case, it's likely that her best legal option (and probably strongly advised by county counsel Nicholas Chrisos who is representing her as defendant in McKay) was to immediately revert to requiring a GC other than SD as soon as Peruta came off the table. Doing anything else, particularly continuing to issue for self defense, would be tantamount to surrendering her position in McKay. The swiftness of the change in 2014 and last week both lend themselves to this thinking, as does the information given earlier by g21sf.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 03-31-2015, 4:15 AM
MA5177 MA5177 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orange county
Posts: 1,404
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
The website was updated this afternoon. The bold is what was added today, the text in the brackets is what was deleted.






.
Wow that really sucks for the people that were ready to pick up and went through all the time and MONEY.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 03-31-2015, 6:37 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,749
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Go back and read what I said. She can do whatever she wants; she has and she will. You're interpretation of her interpretation doesn't matter.

Again, save your keystrokes and armchair lawyering.

.
I apologize that I haven't been able to make you understand a simple matter.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 03-31-2015, 8:39 AM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I apologize that I haven't been able to make you understand a simple matter.

Only unfit teachers blame the student.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 03-31-2015, 8:54 AM
MisplacedTexan's Avatar
MisplacedTexan MisplacedTexan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 704
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grantar2 View Post
When we complained about the hold up on finger printing we got live scan centers of our choice. We have gone from 3 trainers to more than 20.
Amen.

If we stay vocal, and the push for permits continues - with the minimal # of people getting discouraged - so much the better.

Those of us who got approved & issued under SD as good cause can now on renewal answer YES on having a permit on Section 2. I will also have NV when renewal comes around - and and answer NO if I've ever been denied for a permit.

Given the other lawsuits OC is facing - that puts pressure I think on continuing issuing - even if closer scrutiny is given on "good cause". It won't look good I wouldn't think if there are no incidents and she refuses to re-issue 3.500 permits.

I wouldn't think it would look good if she starts to deny renewals - that wasn't an issue, she would start to recall those permits.

Likewise, for her to clamp down to the prior stance that you REALLY needed to have a well documented good cause (where you needed to have a convicted murderer threatening to kill you) - probably wouldn't be viable for her. Until we see otherwise, we should proceed that she needs political cover for "something" to be entered. I'll just consider she's playing covering herself.

But I'm no lawyer - just my optimistic thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 03-31-2015, 9:02 AM
Skates Skates is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 136
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steadyrock View Post
The more I consider this, especially in light of sf's information with the investigator, the more it makes sense.

People tend to forget that Hutchens is still facing her own case in McKay. It is essentially a clone of Peruta. It has been heard, and the decision stayed pending resolution of Peruta, Richards, Chovan, and Baker. Hutchens has always maintained that her policies (pre-Peruta, post, and current) are "just following the law." There are those of us who think she could issue for SD and still be following the law. Obviously, several other Sheriffs do. But for some reason, she leans toward a more conservative view of what the law allows.

Keeping in mind that she is still a defendant in her own case, it's likely that her best legal option (and probably strongly advised by county counsel Nicholas Chrisos who is representing her as defendant in McKay) was to immediately revert to requiring a GC other than SD as soon as Peruta came off the table. Doing anything else, particularly continuing to issue for self defense, would be tantamount to surrendering her position in McKay. The swiftness of the change in 2014 and last week both lend themselves to this thinking, as does the information given earlier by g21sf.
I'm not as well versed in this as some others here, but from what I have learned over the last few years is that there is a different standard in the issuing of CCW's depending on the population density of the counties. Yes, she could continue to issue just for "Self Defense" as some of the Rural counties do, but that won't keep her in line with what is "expected" of the Urban counties. As others have mentioned, she has over and over again said she was just "following the law" which is why she started issuing after Peruta and why nobody should be surprised that she no longer will accept just "Self Defense" after Peruta was scheduled for an en banc hearing.

The only question now is whether OCSD will be as restrictive as it was before in what it considered to be GC and what isn't. I am hopeful that there will be a more broad interpretation of what is accepted. Time will tell...
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 03-31-2015, 10:50 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

All,

Please write the OC Register and voice your displeasure with the new policy, telling them how it's an unnecessary burden, more restrictive, not needed, etc, etc…

The first address is the editor, the second is a staff writer looking into the CCW issue:

rcurley@ocregister.com - Rob Curley, Editor

tsaavedra@ocregister.com - Tony Saavedra, staff writer
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:06 AM
glock21sf glock21sf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Read the newest Blog entry at Artemis.

http://artemisdefenseinstitute.com/Blog
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:17 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,090
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
All,

Please write the OC Register and voice your displeasure with the new policy, telling them how it's an unnecessary burden, more restrictive, not needed, etc, etc…

The first address is the editor, the second is a staff writer looking into the CCW issue:

rcurley@ocregister.com - Rob Curley, Editor

tsaavedra@ocregister.com - Tony Saavedra, staff writer
Let's be careful.

Everyone, please be polite and non emotional, and please, do not bad mouth the sheriff. We don't know what the new policy is. If the register prints comments from twenty bitter, angry "gun people" slamming the sheriff might spiral this somewhere we don't want it to go.

I say we press, move forward, but let's not assume we are screwed and go on the record slamming the as yet unknown policy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:18 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glock21sf View Post
Read the newest Blog entry at Artemis.

http://artemisdefenseinstitute.com/Blog
Sounds like they're tamping down their excitement from their previous post. Sure, that investigator may have said you need to provide additional good cause and they'll issue, but those of us who have been around for a while know that's the way it used to be, when permits were issued few and far between.

We'll see what happens.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:19 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 12,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Let's be careful.

Everyone, please be polite and non emotional, and please, do not bad mouth the sheriff. We don't know what the new policy is. If the register prints comments from twenty bitter, angry "gun people" slamming the sheriff might spiral this somewhere we don't want it to go.

I say we press, move forward, but let's not assume we are screwed and go on the record slamming the as yet unknown policy.
Good point, we don't need to sound like wing-nuts
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:27 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisplacedTexan View Post
Amen.

If we stay vocal, and the push for permits continues - with the minimal # of people getting discouraged - so much the better.

Those of us who got approved & issued under SD as good cause can now on renewal answer YES on having a permit on Section 2. I will also have NV when renewal comes around - and and answer NO if I've ever been denied for a permit.

Given the other lawsuits OC is facing - that puts pressure I think on continuing issuing - even if closer scrutiny is given on "good cause". It won't look good I wouldn't think if there are no incidents and she refuses to re-issue 3.500 permits.

I wouldn't think it would look good if she starts to deny renewals - that wasn't an issue, she would start to recall those permits.

Likewise, for her to clamp down to the prior stance that you REALLY needed to have a well documented good cause (where you needed to have a convicted murderer threatening to kill you) - probably wouldn't be viable for her. Until we see otherwise, we should proceed that she needs political cover for "something" to be entered. I'll just consider she's playing covering herself.

But I'm no lawyer - just my optimistic thinking.
I guess we'll find out for sure when the first of the new 'wave' of CCW permit holders go in for their renewals roughly a year from now. It will be interesting to read their inteview comments next year to see where the good cause threshold will be.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:41 AM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
All,

Please write the OC Register and voice your displeasure with the new policy, telling them how it's an unnecessary burden, more restrictive, not needed, etc, etc…

The first address is the editor, the second is a staff writer looking into the CCW issue:

rcurley@ocregister.com - Rob Curley, Editor

tsaavedra@ocregister.com - Tony Saavedra, staff writer

It would also be helpful to get the OC Weekly involved. R Scott Moxley is the man to reach, there. The Weekly meets a different, and sometimes more vocal (and rights-affirming) crowd.

RScottMoxley@ocweekly.com
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 03-31-2015, 12:54 PM
glock21sf glock21sf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Sounds like they're tamping down their excitement from their previous post. Sure, that investigator may have said you need to provide additional good cause and they'll issue, but those of us who have been around for a while know that's the way it used to be, when permits were issued few and far between.

We'll see what happens.
I took it as they wanted to share that people didn't cancel and are following through with the process. Definitely a good sign. No point in repeating verbatim what the investigator stated since the Facebook post was detailed.

You are absolutely correct. We will see what happens. Patience is our Friend. We'll know soon enough by people posting their actual experience with the process.

Last edited by glock21sf; 03-31-2015 at 1:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 03-31-2015, 12:56 PM
xreaperx xreaperx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 543
iTrader: 13 / 93%
Default

Wife just called and said investigator paid me a visit to verify address. I'm going to look at it as a step in the right direction due the fact I received the email asking for updated good cause yesterday, I scratched out some details and attached whatever documentation I could find and sent back asap. Then today investigator shows up to verify address.

Might be coincidence or might be a good sign that they accepted my GC statement. I have already completed live scan. Guess just have to play the waiting game from here on out.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 03-31-2015, 3:28 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A friend just went in for their interview ... they were told that lawful self defense would no longer be accepted for new applications or renewals until the Peruta en banc was decided one way or the other. Since they didn't have any of the prior policy 'good cause' reasons (e.g., money/jewelry courier, stalker with restraining order, etc.) ... OCSD strongly directed/suggested to just put the application on file hold until Peruta is decided rather than going forward and getting denied.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 03-31-2015 at 3:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 03-31-2015, 3:49 PM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,722
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Did your friend discuss possible alternatives to "self defense" with the investigator at all? Any statements the investigator may have made could be useful to other applicants.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
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 7:07 AM.




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.