Wine Country Sheriffs Good Cause, Post Peruta

[JSKI1911]

Has anyone contacted their Wine Country Sheriffs Departments, to determine if they are still requiring a Good Cause statement in light of the Peruta decision?

I had contacted the Napa SO and they were not rescinding the Good Cause requirement.

[Sunday]

Cival law suits!!Own their homes.

[G2283]

Anyone talk to the Sonoma County SO yet to see if they plan on changing the "just cause" to personal protection? I'm guessing that they will stall as long as possible.

[Survivalism]

Originally Posted by G2283

Anyone talk to the Sonoma County SO yet to see if they plan on changing the "just cause" to personal protection? I'm guessing that they will stall as long as possible.

From what I'm seeing in the 707 Banter thread, lots of people are applying, but none have gotten word yet.

[taperxz]

Mendo has been basically shall issue for years. Lake is basically shall issue with no strings attached since Rivero got into office 3 years ago. Whether he wins reelection or not i expect it to stay the same if either of the other two candidates wins.

[JSKI1911]

Napa City residents are dead in the water. The Napa SO wont accept any applications from Napa City residents. The Napa SO stance is that Napa residents must apply with the city. The Napa PD is not handing out applications until the dust has settled on Peruta. Stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[G2283]

Dropped off my app yesterday and just got off the phone with Sonoma County SO. They are "shall issue" never thought I would see the day !!!

[DodgeThis]

Originally Posted by G2283

Dropped off my app yesterday and just got off the phone with Sonoma County SO. They are "shall issue" never thought I would see the day !!!

Someone from Santa Rosa just got denied on 02/10/14. Check the LTC forum. Good luck man, I will be applying soon.

[crya79]

Originally Posted by JSKI1911

Has anyone contacted their Wine Country Sheriffs Departments, to determine if they are still requiring a Good Cause statement in light of the Peruta decision?

I had contacted the Napa SO and they were not rescinding the Good Cause requirement.

Guys! There's now a two-way race for Sheriff in Napa:
http://napavalleyregister.com/eagle/...a4bcf887a.html

I think now that more than one person is running somehow our local chapter should find a way with Calguns support to start putting pressure on these candidates to come out and say whether they will support current policies which have twice been ruled unconstitutional or whether they will comply and change course like SD and OC have done. What do you guys think? How do we get these candidates to address their positions on CCW?

[jglass]

on Tuesday the 5th Steve Fratis came on ksro 1350am radio and they did an interview with him about if they would start issuing ccw's in Sonoma county, he said as long as you have clean back round and no felonies basically past all that and they would issue you one, I dropped my app off on wed now waiting I will keep you posted.

[jglass]

steve fratis is also the issuing sheriff for Sonoma county

[707electrician]

Originally Posted by jglass

on Tuesday the 5th Steve Fratis came on ksro 1350am radio and they did an interview with him about if they would start issuing ccw's in Sonoma county, he said as long as you have clean back round and no felonies basically past all that and they would issue you one, I dropped my app off on wed now waiting I will keep you posted.

Tuesday the 5th is when they count granted a temporary stay to allow for petitions for en banc to be filed and since then they have gone back to requiring you to "supplement your good cause" or so I thought that was the case

[egslaw]

See below from Sonoma County Sheriff's Website found here: http://www.sonomasheriff.org/ccw.php

LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON

PERUTA v. COUNTY of SAN DIEGO

On 2/13/2014 the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office dropped the "good cause" standard for issuing conceal carry permits after the requirement was struck down that day by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the Second Amendment bars California counties from requiring law-abiding gun owners who want to carry concealed firearms to demonstrate special, individualized needs for protection.

On 2/28/2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to withdraw their decision in the above case by a decision to rehear the case En Banc. The Court has ordered a stay on the issuance of their previous mandate from 2/13/2014, which only required an applicant to state a need of “self defense” as their reason for desiring a CCW License. Therefore, as of 2/28/14 the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office will revert back to requiring all applicants to supplement the “good cause” statement for the CCW License in accord with Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Policy 219 and California Penal Code section 26150(a)(2).

[tomfrey]

I live in Santa Rosa and I applied (and was denied) last April at the Sheriffs Office. Now I see this on their website:

QUALIFIED APPLICANTS:

In order to qualify for a license to carry a firearm, the applicant must meet certain
requirements, including:

(a) Be a resident of unincorporated Sonoma County or the Cities of Windsor, Sonoma, Cloverdale, Cotati or Healdsburg.(Penal Code § 26150; Penal Code § 26155).

When I applied a year ago I asked the SO where to apply since I lived within city limits, and was told the SO- have things changed ?