San Diego -- APPLY to Get a Spot in Line

[Gray Peterson]

While Sheriff Gore decided not to appeal the decision of the three judge panel, several other parties, including the California Attorney General, filed motions to intervene in the case, as well as petitions for rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 28, 2014, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay in the case. Since that time, the Ninth Circuit has sought briefing on various issues, with the most recent pleadings being filed by December 24, 2014. On March 26, 2015 Chief Judge Thomas of the Ninth Circuit issued an order for the case to be heard en banc by the full Ninth Circuit.

Given the status of the case with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the fact that there are other procedural steps before the court’s decision becomes final, the Sheriff’s Department’s policies and procedures remain in effect and are unchanged.

The Sheriff’s Department continues to process CCW applications for those applicants that meet the current legal requirement to show good cause.

Applications for CCW’s based on the cause of “personal protection” may be dropped off at the Sheriff’s License Division and will be held in abeyance until the Ninth Circuit has completed its analysis of the issue.

Should the case be decided on the basis of “personal protection,” the Sheriff’s Department will begin to process applications held in abeyance in the order that they were received. Applicants will be contacted by the Sheriff’s Licensing Division with instructions on how to complete the process.

From:
http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

[jtyner]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

...our intention is to contact you volunteers with specific instructions on how to proceed as we move forward with case development. Not everyone will be tasked with the same thing, and timing will be unique to each county.

So... stand by?

[Casual_Shooter]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

...

_ _ _

[N6ATF]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

...

Originally Posted by Casual_Shooter

_ _ _

...

[jshoebot]

I'm also waiting for orders!

[Todd98SE]

Ready and waiting sir.

[McCrown]

2 weeks? Right?

[craneman]

Late showing up, but ready for instructions.

[GMG]

Just received the message!

[chewy352]

Originally Posted by GMG

Just received the message!

What message? I got the email of just the main release but no specific instructions for San Diego.

[horsetrader]

awaiting orders, sir.

[grammaton76]

You know, folks, you can subscribe without posting to the thread. We don't need to fill the first several pages with "I'm here" and "let me know", etc etc.

Just click "thread tools" and then "subscribe" from the drop-down menu right above the top post.

[Untamed1972]

Does anyone know if SDSO does neighbor interviews as part of the application investigation?

[Rossi357]

Which course of action in SD County will get shall issue to happen sooner? Ed's case in Fed court, or this action using the good cause statments.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Rossi357

Which course of action in SD County will get shall issue to happen sooner? Ed's case in Fed court, or this action using the good cause statments.

Well, the point of this drill is to basically get the counties into statutory compliance.

[Casual_Shooter]

Sorry to sound dense... but can you point me to the instructions for this "drill". I've donated to my county, but is there something else I'm supposed to be doing?

[Rossi357]

Originally Posted by Casual_Shooter

Sorry to sound dense... but can you point me to the instructions for this "drill". I've donated to my county, but is there something else I'm supposed to be doing?

I think we are waiting for accepted good cause statements. Then we will be advised on a course of action.

[loather]

I'm currently reading through the San Diego requirements. In there, it states that we'd be required to submit character references. Are they legally allowed to do that? Additionally, it states further down that character references generally aren't required for judges, former law enforcement, and SO reserves. Doesn't this run afoul of equal protection?

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by loather

I'm currently reading through the San Diego requirements. In there, it states that we'd be required to submit character references. Are they legally allowed to do that? Additionally, it states further down that character references generally aren't required for judges, former law enforcement, and SO reserves. Doesn't this run afoul of equal protection?

No, and yes.

[budprop]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

No, and yes.

Uhhhh.... ok, good answer, thanks.

[loather]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

No, and yes.

Excellent. I'm available and willing to make waves if need be.

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by loather

I'm currently reading through the San Diego requirements. In there, it states that we'd be required to submit character references. Are they legally allowed to do that? Additionally, it states further down that character references generally aren't required for judges, former law enforcement, and SO reserves. Doesn't this run afoul of equal protection?

Where they make it even stickier is they require the references to be from SD county residents, which is in effect a de facto length of residency requirement.

As for the LEOs I can see why they would exempt them only in they they've had a far more detailed and indepth background investgation done on them already which would provide and investigator FAR more info to look at then is contained on the standard DOJ app. Not saying I agree with it, just that I can see why.

But even for a full LEO background investigation letters are not required, only contact info for the references. It seems a pointless exercise to require the letters if the investigator is going to contact them personally for further interview anyway.

[GuyW]

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

As for the LEOs I can see why they would exempt them only in they they've had a far more detailed and indepth background investgation done on them already which would provide and investigator FAR more info to look at then is contained on the standard DOJ app. Not saying I agree with it, just that I can see why.

And everyone knows that's a reasonable approach, as evidenced by the investigations of Craig Peyer, the Oceanside sex-Chippie (Carabahlo ??), the SDPD officer that trashed his Murrietta (?) house, etc etc etc

.

[sd_shooter]

bump

[sd_shooter]

Ok, since Peruta is now over (at least Round 1), is it time to apply yet... or still just time to sit back and wait?

[J.D.Allen]

Originally Posted by loather

I'm currently reading through the San Diego requirements. In there, it states that we'd be required to submit character references. Are they legally allowed to do that? Additionally, it states further down that character references generally aren't required for judges, former law enforcement, and SO reserves. Doesn't this run afoul of equal protection?

This is nothing. In Imperial county they require reference letters to be from LEO's. So if you don't know any quite well, you're just SOL.

[3013]

Funds sent. Transaction ID: 4655-0222-2478-9879

[guns4life]

I'm ready to go, just say the word and I'll submit my paperwork.

[Crom]

Okay, so How do we get San Diego Sheriff's Office to drop the illegal three character reference letters? Is Jason Davis going to send them a nasty letter anytime soon?

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by Crom

Okay, so How do we get San Diego Sheriff's Office to drop the illegal three character reference letters? Is Jason Davis going to send them a nasty letter anytime soon?

^^


Also, to combat that counties claims that they approve 90% of all applicants, I'm thinkin' its close to being time for a that SD CCW application day with a couple of hundred "GC = Self Defense" apps so at a minimum we can start racking up some denials, but I'm willing to wait a month to see what the judge has to say in the Peruta decision.

[grammaton76]

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

Also, to combat that counties claims that they approve 90% of all applicants, I'm thinkin' its close to being time for a that SD CCW application day with a couple of hundred "GC = Self Defense" apps so at a minimum we can start racking up some denials, but I'm willing to wait a month to see what the judge has to say in the Peruta decision.

The only time it's close to, is time for us on the sidelines (myself included) to sit down, shut up, and wait patiently to see what CGF requests of us.

I really don't think we'll ever have a "racking up mass denials" drive. Any denials being pursued will most likely need to be from disabled, minority, gay, etc complainants in the event that the suit has to escalate into appeals. Anyone who would be useful for a denial, has probably already been contacted.

The rest of us on the sidelines are only useful for two things: financial contributions, or eventually helping run CCW application drives once SDSO has been forced to cave in.

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by grammaton76

The only time it's close to, is time for us on the sidelines (myself included) to sit down, shut up, and wait patiently to see what CGF requests of us.

I really don't think we'll ever have a "racking up mass denials" drive. Any denials being pursued will most likely need to be from disabled, minority, gay, etc complainants in the event that the suit has to escalate into appeals. Anyone who would be useful for a denial, has probably already been contacted.

The rest of us on the sidelines are only useful for two things: financial contributions, or eventually helping run CCW application drives once SDSO has been forced to cave in.

Thank you for further marginalizing "heterosexual white males" as the only persons in our society who are "non-class" citizens. For the purpose of picking plaintiffs I understand the value of extra flavor of certain types of people. But simply for the purpose of filling the sheriff's files with denials for lack of GC so they cant claim a 90% approval rate, why does it matter who they are? Then from those denials you pick the best for plaintiffs.

The usefulness of statistics on denials was not of my own creation. And personally sitting in the courtroom listening to County counsel boast of their "90% approval rate" leads me to believe there is some validity to the value of the stats.

Not to mention did I say anything about "screw CFG and lets all go apply?" There has been plenty of indication that depending on Peruta outcome, the call for SD applicants is coming very soon.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

Thank you for further marginalizing "heterosexual white males" as the only persons in our society who are "non-class" citizens.

Otis McDonald was not an accident. Deanna Sykes is not an accident. Shelly Parker (who should have been the national symbol of overturning the DC handgun ban had it not been for the Navegar standard) is not an accident. Tom Palmer (of Palmer v. DC) is not an accident. My case is not an accident. These are all well planned cases with specifically sympathetic plaintiffs due to their circumstances. They are the most "politically correct", regardless of your own misgivings as to the underpinnings of that belief.

That being said, symbol plaintiffs are less important to a writ of mandate case because it's a state statutory law issue.

[Anti-Hero]

Isn't that what Peruta tried to do, and was dismissed?

[sd_shooter]

Originally Posted by Anti-Hero

Isn't that what Peruta tried to do, and was dismissed?

That's what I thought too.

[blakdawg]

That's correct - but what the ruling in Peruta said was that the plaintiffs hadn't done a good enough job showing that their circumstances were identical to those of people who were approved.

This is what the court said:

Plaintiffs submitted more than 700 pages of applications and renewals. Id. The court observed that “some applicants were granted concealed weapons licenses after stating on paper basically the same grounds for issuance upon which plaintiffs’ applications were denied.” Id. Nonetheless, the court held there was no genuine issue of material fact because the records did not establish those who received licenses were similarly situated to plaintiffs. Id. The records were incomplete—they did not reveal information compiled in background checks, oral interviews and the like—and the records did not establish a causal connection between factors suggesting “privileged class” and the issuance of a concealed weapons license. Id. The court concluded that, “without evidence of anything more than vagaries in [] administration,” plaintiffs equal protection claim could not survive summary judgment. Id.

Like the plaintiffs in March, Plaintiffs here cannot demonstrate they were treated differently than similarly situated others. To show disparate treatment, Plaintiffs have offered a number of HDSA renewal applications as a contrast to Plaintiffs initial applications. See Exs. U-PP. But the two types of applications are not comparable; renewal applications are generally issued on the spot and subject to less rigorous documentation requirements than initial applications. See Pelowitz Decl. ¶ 12. Just one of the Plaintiffs contends his renewal was denied, and in that case, the renewal was granted following an appeal. See Exs. K-S. Accordingly, the evidence introduced by Plaintiffs does not establish or create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether similarly situated individuals were treated differently. At most, it demonstrates “vagaries in [] administration.” See March, 2001 WL 1112110, at *5 (N.D.Cal. 2001). Moreover, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the denials of concealed weapons licenses to them were based on impermissible grounds. Defendant’s policy does not favor HDSA members in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

,, so it's not just good enough to copy someone else's good cause statement and wait for approval - at least not today in San Diego County.

[wildhawker]

Our Initiative continues unimpeded and full steam ahead. Stay tuned!

In the meantime, try to find a few vendors willing to support their customers' civil rights and sponsor Carry License Reform in that area. We need all the help we can get.

[Skullster]

I sent in my $100 to sponsor San Diego County today. Transaction ID: 3PF4353207094452L

[fighting4theconstitution]

I applied and received mine in about 4-5 months after all the paperwork, fees and shooting took place. And all that with the current sheriff in office.

[J.D.Allen]

Originally Posted by fighting4theconstitution

I applied and received mine in about 4-5 months after all the paperwork, fees and shooting took place. And all that with the current sheriff in office.

Care to share your angle?