Sacramento and New DOJ Form

[Rugerdaddy]

When I renewed I wasn't required to complete a DOJ form. My son has his renewal appointment coming up, and has to complete the new DOJ form. For justification, it states that if you are requesting for self-defense you have to give additional justification as to why you feel threatened (or something to that effect.) What are Sac renewal applicants putting in that section? Thanks.

[Ferrum]

I put "see attached" on my app and used the same justification statement I submitted on my original app.

[rlmosher]

Originally Posted by Rugerdaddy

When I renewed I wasn't required to complete a DOJ form. My son has his renewal appointment coming up, and has to complete the new DOJ form. For justification, it states that if you are requesting for self-defense you have to give additional justification as to why you feel threatened (or something to that effect.) What are Sac renewal applicants putting in that section? Thanks.

I was looking for the area you talked about and could not find that wording. on the app where is it located?

[sig916]

Sac DOJ application:

"If the CCW license is desired for self-protection, the protection of others, or for the protection of large sums of money or
valuable property, you are required to explain and provide good cause for issuance of the license. For example, has your life
or property been threatened or jeopardized? Explain incidents and include dates, times, locations, and names of police
agencies to which these incidents were reported."

I wonder how those who used " self protection" as a reason are going to explain their self for renewal now?

[Rugerdaddy]

Originally Posted by rlmosher

I was looking for the area you talked about and could not find that wording. on the app where is it located?

See Sig916's quote above. I don't know the exact section number, my son read it to me on the phone.

[Rugerdaddy]

Originally Posted by sig916

Sac DOJ application:

"If the CCW license is desired for self-protection, the protection of others, or for the protection of large sums of money or
valuable property, you are required to explain and provide good cause for issuance of the license. For example, has your life
or property been threatened or jeopardized? Explain incidents and include dates, times, locations, and names of police
agencies to which these incidents were reported."

I wonder how those who used " self protection" as a reason are going to explain their self for renewal now?

Exactly. And that's what most Sac applicant's used as their justification, as did my son and myself. So, how do we handle this now?

[Rugerdaddy]

Originally Posted by Ferrum

I put "see attached" on my app and used the same justification statement I submitted on my original app.

Are you saying that your justification for needing your CCW for self-defense was self-defense. That is redundant. Did they accept that? How will everyone in Sac respond to this question (or, how HAVE they responded) who used self-defense as their justification?

[Old_Bald_Guy]

I wrote the same exact thing for my renewal that I wrote the first time around: Self defense and the defense of my family. That's it. They accepted it, no problem. No changes are necessary. There's an earlier thread on this in which numerous people reported the same thing.

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by Rugerdaddy

When I renewed I wasn't required to complete a DOJ form. My son has his renewal appointment coming up, and has to complete the new DOJ form. For justification, it states that if you are requesting for self-defense you have to give additional justification as to why you feel threatened (or something to that effect.) What are Sac renewal applicants putting in that section? Thanks.

I wonder what they might have to say about "Future Self-Protection". Then you could indicate that your justification is something that has not yet happened, that you cannot possibly forecast the future, or the kinds and quantity of assailants cannot possibly be numbered due to court ordered inmate releases.

I think it is absurd that renewals are being asked to provide good cause justification, when they are already established this in the initial application and as incident free carry licensees. Have you ever encountered such questioning upon renewal of your California Drivers License? Do you really need to retest to be sure you are good to drive?-- because we need to ask every 2 years, just to be sure...

[Rugerdaddy]

Originally Posted by Old_Bald_Guy

I wrote the same exact thing for my renewal that I wrote the first time around: Self defense and the defense of my family. That's it. They accepted it, no problem. No changes are necessary. There's an earlier thread on this in which numerous people reported the same thing.

I searched, but nothing came up. Was the thread in this sub-forum, LTC Discussion?

Your answer implies that you don't understand the issue. The new DOJ form asks you to justify your request to carry for "self-protection". If you are requesting for self-defense, as most of us have, you now are required to explain WHY you need self-protection, including dates, times, locations, and police reports of the incident(s) that drive you to feel you need a LTC.

[Librarian]

Would you please find a copy of the "new" DOJ form and post a link or an image? AFAIK, DOJ has not modified the standard LTC app, so "new" seems an odd descriptor.

Oddly, where PC specifies an application, it does not actually say renewals must use the standard form

26175. (a) (1) Applications for licenses,
applications for amendments to licenses,
amendments to licenses,
and licenses under this article shall be uniform throughout the state, upon forms to be
prescribed by the Attorney General.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

Originally Posted by Rugerdaddy

I searched, but nothing came up. Was the thread in this sub-forum, LTC Discussion?

Your answer implies that you don't understand the issue. The new DOJ form asks you to justify your request to carry for "self-protection". If you are requesting for self-defense, as most of us have, you now are required to explain WHY you need self-protection, including dates, times, locations, and police reports of the incident(s) that drive you to feel you need a LTC.

I understand the issue perfectly, dude. My answer is as follows:
You are NOT required by Sac County to explain why you need self protection. Clear enough? I renewed with the new form and used the exact wording I used on the old form two years ago. Seems like you're the one who lacks comprehension today. Now, if you wanna argue the abstractions involved in the strangely reworded DOJ form instead of the practicalities in how SSD is handling renewals with the new form, have at it, but, at least in the case of Sac County, that's a different discussion.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

Originally Posted by Rugerdaddy

If you are requesting for self-defense, as most of us have, you now are required to explain WHY you need self-protection, including dates, times, locations, and police reports of the incident(s) that drive you to feel you need a LTC.

No you're not. Not in Sac County, anyway. Ask anyone who's renewed in Sac County since the change. I've already answered you; ask some more people.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Would you please find a copy of the "new" DOJ form and post a link or an image? AFAIK, DOJ has not modified the standard LTC app, so "new" seems an odd descriptor.

Oddly, where PC specifies an application, it does not actually say renewals must use the standard form

Here's the verbiage on SSD's website:


http://sacsheriff.com/organization/o...heriff/ccw.cfm


New application/renewal form:

http://sacsheriff.com/organization/o...cw-doj-app.pdf

The wording in question:




Now, if some of these guys wanna worry about this instead of listening to the numerous members here who've been renewed just fine, that's up to them. They can always email Amber and ask, but they're already pretty busy down there.

Funny thing about all if it is that I recall that notice being on the website AND the DOJ form including that wording before I renewed in June, but now the advisory is dated 7/11/13. Bizarre.
At any rate, the same good cause as ever has been working for people. I believe the original thread may have been in the Sacramento County forum.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

The first time this issue arose was in the "Sacramento: Time to Apply" thread, on page 40 of the thread. Here's the post that clears up everything, including my own bemusement at the time wondering what the "new" wording supposedly was.

Long story short: SELF DEFENSE WORKS AS GOOD CAUSE IN SAC COUNTY.
Additional long story short: Before I start acting all contentious, I should check to see if I've forgotten already having the same conversation and being somewhat confused at the time myself.