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 > Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum Information on how to get a LTC in yourCounty

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 12-16-2013, 4:06 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 977
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I too would like to get ahold of the good cause statements for Alameda County.

Who can fix this?
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."

Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 12-17-2013, 6:06 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 977
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bump
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."

Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 12-17-2013, 8:15 PM
Best sale's Avatar
Best sale Best sale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The land of the Free ...
Posts: 1,287
iTrader: 29 / 97%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesY View Post
Looks like the good cause links are down. Anyone know where I can find them?
seems this is what you looking for… I Tried to copy but not working so will re type here

Good Cause for Inssuance

The applicant must establish that there is good cause for the sheriff to issue a CCW license. The Sheriff has determined,on the basis of experience and judgement,good cause to issue a CCW license to Alameda County residents will exist only in conditions of necessity.Therefore,applicants should be able to supply credible evidence of the following

1.There is a documented,presently existing,clear and present danger to life,or great bodily harm to the applicant and/or his or her spouse,domestic partner,or dependents.
2. The danger of harm is specific to the applicant,or his or her immediate family,and is not generally shared by other similarly situated members of the public.
3.Existing law enforcement resources cannot adequately address the danger of harm.
4.The danger of harm cannot reasonably be avoided by alternative measures.
5.Licensing the applicant to carry a concealed weapon is significantly likely to reduce the danger of harm.

While each of the above factors is considered in the decision-making process, the Sheriff makes a good cause determination based upon the totality of the circumstances presented in each individual case
__________________
you need to open the how to question on their website.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 12-18-2013, 6:08 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 977
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Best sale View Post
seems this is what you looking for… I Tried to copy but not working so will re type here...
Thanks, I appreciate your efforts Best sale.

I've been all over the Alameda County website, and am familiar with what you posted.

A couple years ago CGF did a FOIA to get the Good Cause statements for actual applications, that were approved in Alameda County.

This would be very helpful, as it gives one a sense of what will fly.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about (this version is for Solano County): http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...4&d=1385862573
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."


Last edited by Experimentalist; 12-18-2013 at 6:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 12-25-2013, 4:16 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 977
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bump
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 01-06-2014, 10:45 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just made a post in the CA 2nd Amendment Political Activism forum I thought you guys might be interested in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I've been contacted via PMs by folks asking for the nearest location to their Bay Area workplace where they can get a CCW. This has also been the subject of more than a few threads. So I expanded upon one of my posts here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...9#post12974509
to use as a reference to save me time in replying. My most recent standard answer had been Solano Co, specifically the cities of Vallejo or Benecia. Why?

Vallejo is excellent for folks working in western CoCoCo: Rodeo, Pinole, San Pablo, El Cerrito, even down into Orinda and Berkeley (Alameda Co), depending upon traffic, time of day, and BART.

Benecia is excellent for people working in central CoCoCo: Martinez, Bay Point, Concord, Pleasant Hill, Clayton, and Walnut Creek.

Looking over google maps, I now see Rio Vista (also in Solano Co), is excellent for those working in eastern CoCoCo: Pittsburg east to Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, and Discovery Bay.

So RIGHT NOW, pretty much anyone working in CoCoCo north of Moraga-Alamo can get a CCW and have a reasonable commute from Solano Co.

I looked at the map some more and realized if we could get San Joaquin Co to go "virtual Shall Issue" (i.e., liberally issue CCWs), people who work in San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Hayward, Union City, Fremont, Castro Valley, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore (all in Alameda Co) (again, depending upon traffic, time of day, and BART), as well as people in southern CoCoCo (Alamo, Danville and San Ramon), could live in Tracy and get CCWs. It would also give people working in eastern CoCoCo another option for where to live to get a CCW: Stockton.

Naturally, liberalizing CCW issuance would also benefit the many San Joaquin Co. residents who live & work in that county.

Winning San Joaquin Co means most anyone working in any part of CoCoCo and most people working in most of Alameda Co can get a CCW if they are willing to commute. (A LOT of people are renters nowadays, so moving won't be as bad for them.)

Thus, I think CGNers working in southern & eastern Alameda Co and southern CoCoCo. should get involved with San Joaquin Co CGNers in the 2014 San Joaquin Co sheriff's race to win "virtual Shall Issue" for that county.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 01-07-2014, 6:10 AM
Fireof59 Fireof59 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 22
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Thanks Paladin

Your Post gives someone (Me) with no knowledge of the area, places I can look at on a map!

VERY MUCH Appreciated!
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 01-11-2014, 9:42 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 977
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I just made a post in the CA 2nd Amendment Political Activism forum I thought you guys might be interested in.
Great news Paladin, I'm glad to hear that the fight is making progress.

However, some of us are homeowners, and have no intention of moving in the foreseeable future.

I wonder if anyone could fix the link to the good cause statements for Alameda County?

I would very much appreciate it.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."

Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 01-11-2014, 11:31 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Experimentalist View Post
Great news Paladin, I'm glad to hear that the fight is making progress.

However, some of us are homeowners, and have no intention of moving in the foreseeable future.
No big deal: put your excess in storage, rent an apt or house in Solano, get your CCW and rent out your house for 2 years. It just depends upon how bad you want a CA CCW....

By that time Drake, Richards-Peruta, and/or Pantano should have been run by SCOTUS and, if we win (before 2015 July 01), PIs & TROs will be flying in the Bay Area and you can move back home.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 01-12-2014 at 6:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 01-16-2014, 5:31 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 977
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bump... waiting for Alameda County good cause link to be fixed.

It's been broken for about a year now.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."

Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 01-16-2014, 7:29 PM
califractal califractal is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

same, would love the link to be fixed
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 01-17-2014, 6:08 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Experimentalist View Post
Bump... waiting for Alameda County good cause link to be fixed.

It's been broken for about a year now.
IIRC, those GC statement files were from 2 yrs ago. CCWs have to be renewed every 2 yrs, so they're out-of-date. Whether that matters (i.e., whether Ahern has changed his GC standard), I don't know.

IIRC, a few months ago Brandon said the SI would be getting more attention and then CGF released the 2012 and 2013 CCW stats.

Will they release updated GC files? I don't know. You may want to email Brandon (his email is in "wildhawker" sig line)
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 01-27-2014, 5:55 PM
John Galt John Galt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just to let everyone know Ahern is up for reelection in June
http://www.acgov.org/rov/elections/20140603/

I have not been able to find if anyone has announced they will be running against him. Getting a person in office who understands our civil rights is the quickest way to change.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 02-13-2014, 3:02 PM
jaed jaed is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has anyone tried to call and see if they are going to change their view on what is considered good cause in light of today's ruling?
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 02-13-2014, 4:19 PM
Son of BAR7's Avatar
Son of BAR7 Son of BAR7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Oakland
Posts: 320
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

I would also like to know
__________________
Liberty is 'Freedom To' not 'Freedom From'

When they kick in your front door,
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head,
Or on the trigger of your gun?
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 02-13-2014, 7:40 PM
jaed jaed is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I will try to call tomorrow.
I hope they had a change of heart.

This is where the sheriff is coming from.
https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/admin_ia_ccw.php
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 02-14-2014, 5:58 AM
John Galt John Galt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They will go down kicking and screaming.

I think we should organize and all apply together. We can make a big spectacle and call the news. It needs to be well organized, we need to be dressed nicely in business casual attire and have a good speaker to talk to the news. This is our chance to show them we are not misplaced southern rednecks who are members of the KKK. It would be nice if we could get a long line of people waiting outside the sheriffs office one morning. It would be nice if we could show we are responsible, honorable members of society.

We need to talk in a more private setting to avoid the grabbers from having any media time. It sure would be nice to have a private invite only section on calguns or maybe we can set up a group another place that is invite only.

I am willing to help. Who is in?

Last edited by John Galt; 02-14-2014 at 6:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 02-14-2014, 9:53 AM
jaed jaed is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well Crap.
I just called and Alameda is not going to change their mind "YET" until they are forced. Their recording says that yesterdays ruling did not change anything and that they will not change anything until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
Grrrr

Listen for yourself: 510-208-9890
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 02-14-2014, 10:05 AM
james29's Avatar
james29 james29 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 190
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Weird I didn't think the Supreme Court had anything to do with it YET
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 02-14-2014, 10:10 AM
bug_eyedmonster bug_eyedmonster is offline
Bacon Cheeseburger Lover
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East Bay, CA
Posts: 3,471
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

While I'm willing to help any way that I can, I would rather not make it public news that I am applying for a LTC in the county.


Jerry

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
They will go down kicking and screaming.

I think we should organize and all apply together. We can make a big spectacle and call the news. It needs to be well organized, we need to be dressed nicely in business casual attire and have a good speaker to talk to the news. This is our chance to show them we are not misplaced southern rednecks who are members of the KKK. It would be nice if we could get a long line of people waiting outside the sheriffs office one morning. It would be nice if we could show we are responsible, honorable members of society.

We need to talk in a more private setting to avoid the grabbers from having any media time. It sure would be nice to have a private invite only section on calguns or maybe we can set up a group another place that is invite only.

I am willing to help. Who is in?
__________________
The inconvenience of poor quality lingers long after the thrill of a good bargain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinetguy View Post
I always thought nothing beat a BJ. :shrug:
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 02-14-2014, 11:38 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaed View Post
Well Crap.
I just called and Alameda is not going to change their mind "YET" until they are forced. Their recording says that yesterdays ruling did not change anything and that they will not change anything until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
Grrrr

Listen for yourself: 510-208-9890


Ask them how that worked out for Illinois? Moore NEVER went to SCOTUS, or even en banc, yet IL was FORCED to repeal No Issue.

No wonder our side keeps WINNING!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-14-2014 at 9:06 PM.. Reason: removed excess verbiage
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 02-14-2014, 3:56 PM
oepirate oepirate is offline
Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fremont, Alameda County
Posts: 225
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Go easy there Paladin, no reason to convince them to stop digging that hole until its all over.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 02-14-2014, 5:09 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow Reality Check...

Agencies do not have to instantaneously comply because of Brown v. Board of Education (II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955), and here's why:

"The judgments below, except that, in the Delaware case, are accordingly reversed, and the cases are remanded to the District Courts to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases."

What this means (to me, according to Judge Posner in the argument of Shepard v. Madigan, 734 F. 3d 748 (7th Cir. 2013)), (in paraphrasing) "compliance would have to be with all deliberate speed." He said that "noone could have sought an injunction on the basis that the states did not instantaneously comply when they had not been ordered" (in the Brown opinion), and that "instantaneous compliance didn't exist". (Posner, J., 2013). Posner was using that basis mainly for his argument that Shepard (in the Shepard v. Madigan case) didn't have a case (thus far into the argument).

Don't let Judge Posner hear any of you (or us) go out and start making a case that the Sheriff should be locked up or put on a plane and flown to Pluto for not issuing carry licenses on the spot right after the opinion was published. Everything takes time, and this one will not happen yesterday.

(Edited to add):

Nothing in the Peruta opinion (that I can detect) demands instantaneous compliance, nor does any part of the opinion relate to anything concerning an order for the Sheriff of San Diego County or any other Sheriff or issuing authority to immediately start issuing carry licenses to individuals who comply with the application process without being forced to provide a good cause statement. What it does is REVERSE and REMAND the judgment of the court below for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the Court. If it did, the judgment would likely have been stayed for a certain amount of time, or for as much time as necessary in order to allow the state and its agencies to comply with the judgment. What we should now do is begin to watch for new movement as it becomes available in the original District Court case (3:09-cv-02371) and wait for that court to issue an order consistent with the opinion written by yesterday's majority. That is where you might see the injunction.

No, I'm not a lawyer.

Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 02-14-2014 at 5:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 02-14-2014, 6:51 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post

What this means (to me, according to Judge Posner in the argument of Shepard v. Madigan, 734 F. 3d 748 (7th Cir. 2013)), (in paraphrasing) "compliance would have to be with all deliberate speed." He said that "noone could have sought an injunction on the basis that the states did not instantaneously comply when they had not been ordered" (in the Brown opinion), and that "instantaneous compliance didn't exist". (Posner, J., 2013). Posner was using that basis mainly for his argument that Shepard (in the Shepard v. Madigan case) didn't have a case (thus far into the argument).

Don't let Judge Posner hear any of you (or us) go out and start making a case that the Sheriff should be locked up or put on a plane and flown to Pluto for not issuing carry licenses on the spot right after the opinion was published. Everything takes time, and this one will not happen yesterday.

(Edited to add):

Nothing in the Peruta opinion (that I can detect) demands instantaneous compliance, nor does any part of the opinion relate to anything concerning an order for the Sheriff of San Diego County or any other Sheriff or issuing authority to immediately start issuing carry licenses to individuals who comply with the application process without being forced to provide a good cause statement. What it does is REVERSE and REMAND the judgment of the court below for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the Court. If it did, the judgment would likely have been stayed for a certain amount of time, or for as much time as necessary in order to allow the state and its agencies to comply with the judgment. What we should now do is begin to watch for new movement as it becomes available in the original District Court case (3:09-cv-02371) and wait for that court to issue an order consistent with the opinion written by yesterday's majority. That is where you might see the injunction.
Big difference: IL had to pass a bill in BOTH chambers and get the governor to sign it. Peruta does NOT require ANY action from the CA legislature or governor or judiciary. All Peruta does is require issuing authorities (CoPs and Sheriffs) to accept mere "self-defense" as sufficient Good Cause.

The forms don't even have to be changed to eliminate the Good Cause section. The lieutenant or undersheriff or whoever just tells applicant to enter "self-defense" in the Good Cause section during the interview.

Going thru the Reverse & Remand is just going thru the motions -- everyone already knows the outcome. It is as good as done RIGHT NOW!!! The Good Cause requirement HAS BEEN declared UnConstitutional!

Compliance can be immediate, even if not instantaneous.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-14-2014 at 6:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 02-14-2014, 8:11 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Big difference: IL had to pass a bill in BOTH chambers and get the governor to sign it. Peruta does NOT require ANY action from the CA legislature or governor or judiciary. All Peruta does is require issuing authorities (CoPs and Sheriffs) to accept mere "self-defense" as sufficient Good Cause.

The forms don't even have to be changed to eliminate the Good Cause section. The lieutenant or undersheriff or whoever just tells applicant to enter "self-defense" in the Good Cause section during the interview.

Going thru the Reverse & Remand is just going thru the motions -- everyone already knows the outcome. It is as good as done RIGHT NOW!!! The Good Cause requirement HAS BEEN declared UnConstitutional!

Compliance can be immediate, even if not instantaneous.
I'd love for you to be correct, and for me to be FOS, but...

I thought that the Peruta opinion called the good cause requirement unconstitutional:

"San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."

So even if they said "Yeah, OK, just put "self-defense", it would STILL be unconstitutional.

Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 02-14-2014 at 8:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 02-14-2014, 9:05 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
I thought that the Peruta opinion called the good cause requirement unconstitutional:

"San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."

So even if they said "Yeah, OK, just put "self-defense", it would STILL be unconstitutional.

Erik.
Oops! My bad. They'll tell you to just leave it blank. Happy now?

The next time they revise the forms (not quite "instantaneous" but darn quick & easy w/.pdfs), they can edit out any references to "Good Cause." What would that take, less than a day?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 02-21-2014, 2:57 PM
heisenberg's Avatar
heisenberg heisenberg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just called the ALCO SD. The lady I spoke with claimed that since the ruling is being appealed, they are not changing their "good cause" requirement. No surprise there. She advised me NOT to apply now, but I asked her if I did, could I reapply should they be forced to revise their standards and would it count against me. She said I'm free to do that.

My sense was that this was just a clerk and she was polite to me since I was polite to her. It would have done me no good to argue with her since she's pretty much following protocol.

Question is, should we apply now anyway? Anyone have any recent results from their CCW application with Ahern? I almost feel like since the overall thread has been doom and gloom with getting a CCW from ALCO, no one even bothers to apply, which is essentially the same as a denial.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 02-21-2014, 8:09 PM
jaed jaed is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In light of the good news today.
I am thinking about trying to apply and using "self defense" as my reason.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=897109

Has Anyone else started this process?
Any advice or tips that will help others on here out?
I wonder if they will be changing their mind since at this point there is no appeal that I know of?

Thanks

Last edited by jaed; 02-21-2014 at 8:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 02-21-2014, 8:38 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heisenberg View Post
I just called the ALCO SD. The lady I spoke with claimed that since the ruling is being appealed, they are not changing their "good cause" requirement. No surprise there. She advised me NOT to apply now, but I asked her if I did, could I reapply should they be forced to revise their standards and would it count against me. She said I'm free to do that.

My sense was that this was just a clerk and she was polite to me since I was polite to her. It would have done me no good to argue with her since she's pretty much following protocol.
Our opposition is sooo dumb. You really have to wonder if they should be allowed to own, much less carry, firearms.

And you really have to feel sorry for people who work in ACSO and are being fed a bunch of bunk by their bosses....

Gore's press release today says he is NOT APPEALING the 9th Circuit panel's ruling. While it explicitly said he's not asking for en banc, it did not say whether he will or will not ask SCOTUS for cert. But his reasoning for not asking for en banc review applies equally well to SCOTUS, plus he's most likely to LOSE at SCOTUS (5 to 4). So, whoever calls ACSO next, please inform them that there are NO appeals being pursued at this time. March 6th is the cut off for a sua sponte request for en banc by the 9th. May 16th is the cut off for Gore to ask cert. from SCOTUS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by heisenberg View Post
Question is, should we apply now anyway? Anyone have any recent results from their CCW application with Ahern? I almost feel like since the overall thread has been doom and gloom with getting a CCW from ALCO, no one even bothers to apply, which is essentially the same as a denial.
1st, ck the Carry License Reports at:
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/res...ce-initiative/
to see if your city PD issues. If so, contact them to see if they're accepting apps, how long to get appointments/interviews/etc., when, not if, they are going to eliminate the Good Cause requirement from their application process.

Then do the same w/ACSO.

My guess is that your city PD might be the better choice. We've known for years that Ahern might require "special attention" (i.e., a legal b---ch slapping ), to get him to submit, and our side has prepared to do just that.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-24-2014 at 6:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 02-21-2014, 11:05 PM
heisenberg's Avatar
heisenberg heisenberg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah, I posted that just before it was announced that the bad guys weren't seeking en banc. I'll call her back Monday and find out their position.

I live in Oakland. I'm just guessing but I probably won't get too far with a city issued permit request. Might as well try, though. Everyone else carries anyway in this crazy town, I just thought I might try to do it legally for a change.

The link you supplied doesn't have any info for ALCO. Just a note about Sunshine Audit & LE Policy Documents Coming Soon.
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 02-22-2014, 7:39 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heisenberg View Post
I live in Oakland. I'm just guessing but I probably won't get too far with a city issued permit request. Might as well try, though. Everyone else carries anyway in this crazy town, I just thought I might try to do it legally for a change.

The link you supplied doesn't have any info for ALCO. Just a note about Sunshine Audit & LE Policy Documents Coming Soon.
Don't know what browser you're using, but w/Firefox, a webpage w/a bunch of info/links comes up.

For you, this is the relevant link:
http://calgunsfoundation.org/carry-i...eport-2013.pdf

Go to page #7 to see what cities issue in Ala Co. You will see that OPD has issued 1 CCW for a Reserve Officer, thus they ISSUE. A city PD can either issue or not issue, they cannot only issue to whom they want (e.g., reserve officers). Once Peruta is final, you'll be able to apply thru OPD if you want.

I expect Ahern will have to be dragged -- kicking and screaming like a little girl -- to judicial Shall Issue.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 02-22-2014, 12:47 PM
Zeva Zeva is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 254
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Has anyone applied in fremont?it seems they are still requiring a good cause statement?
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 02-22-2014, 7:24 PM
heisenberg's Avatar
heisenberg heisenberg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OK yeah, that link worked. I love it. Oakland...1 CCW permit given out. This PD is about at 60% capacity with lousy response time so who needs a CCW? It all starts at the top with Mayor Quan and her philosophy on the 2A. For now...we wait.
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 02-23-2014, 9:48 AM
Dagger990 Dagger990 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heisenberg View Post
OK yeah, that link worked. I love it. Oakland...1 CCW permit given out. This PD is about at 60% capacity with lousy response time so who needs a CCW? It all starts at the top with Mayor Quan and her philosophy on the 2A. For now...we wait.
Shooting this morning at McD's on 45th and Telegraph at 9:30 in the morning!! That's not even deep into Oakland; I've been to this McD's multiple times and know normal everyday people who live right in that area (in Emeryville).

This is on an average Sunday morning, going in to grab some Egg McMuffins and BAM! Love how this county doesn't even give you a chance, "just trust us" - give me a friggin' break.

https://local.nixle.com/alert/5152342/?sub_id=1335202
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 02-23-2014, 12:01 PM
Code7inOaktown Code7inOaktown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East Bay
Posts: 632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagger990 View Post
Shooting this morning at McD's on 45th and Telegraph at 9:30 in the morning!! That's not even deep into Oakland; I've been to this McD's multiple times and know normal everyday people who live right in that area (in Emeryville).

This is on an average Sunday morning, going in to grab some Egg McMuffins and BAM! Love how this county doesn't even give you a chance, "just trust us" - give me a friggin' break.

https://local.nixle.com/alert/5152342/?sub_id=1335202
Yup. Oakland is the robbery capital of the entire nation. There are basically 13 armed or strong arm robberies a day, every day for 365 days a year.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 02-23-2014, 12:38 PM
MustangMan MustangMan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Union City/Fremont/Newark
Posts: 96
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Tagged for updates on ALCO SD.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 02-23-2014, 4:04 PM
IPSICK's Avatar
IPSICK IPSICK is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 4,259
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaed View Post
Well Crap.
I just called and Alameda is not going to change their mind "YET" until they are forced. Their recording says that yesterdays ruling did not change anything and that they will not change anything until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
Grrrr

Listen for yourself: 510-208-9890
Well they don't mention anything about the Supreme Court but they do discuss that all avenues in the appeals process have not been exhausted. Anyways, the recording still refers to carry as a privilege when obviously the ruling has upheld it as a right. Wonder how much longer Alameda County residents will have to wait.
__________________
"When you get the (men) to the range, you just get the men. But when you bring the (women) to the range, you get the (whole family). And that's what's going to save our 2nd Amendment."--Dianna Liedorff

"Since self-preservation is the 1st law of nature, we assert the...right to self-defense. The Constitution...clearly affirms the right of every American...to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution." --Malcolm X
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 02-23-2014, 6:00 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IPSICK View Post
Well they don't mention anything about the Supreme Court but they do discuss that all avenues in the appeals process have not been exhausted. Anyways, the recording still refers to carry as a privilege when obviously the ruling has upheld it as a right. Wonder how much longer Alameda County residents will have to wait.
That's because they changed the recording.

Originally, it talked about the Peruta decision not having "passed" -- whatever that means in context of a federal appellate court decision. Those (I'll control myself) people thought a court decision had to "pass" some sort of separate vote to take effect.... (more self-control exercised!)

It also said they'd only obey what SCOTUS says (as per my post #261 above)....

These are the people who get to carry guns in public and have the audacity to tell us we can't be trusted to carry guns in public....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-24-2014 at 8:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 02-23-2014, 6:25 PM
mmayer707's Avatar
mmayer707 mmayer707 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Pflugerville, TX
Posts: 713
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If none of the justices on the ninth file for En Banc by the 7th of March (at least I think that is the last day that they can) none of these counties that are denying applications will have a leg to stand on. I expected San Francisco, Alameda, LA, and Santa Clara counties to drag their feet. Crazy thing is that I might be able to get my CCW in San Joaquin here fairly soon. The anti's have gone full retard and now the courts are finally smacking them down. The roster will fall next and then hopefully the "assault" weapons ban.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 02-23-2014, 8:33 PM
jaed jaed is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has anyone tried to submit a application lately?
If so how did it go?

I called today to ask if I could setup a appointment and to find out where to drop of the application.
Had to leave a message. I will keep you guys in the loop.

Last edited by jaed; 02-24-2014 at 5:25 PM.. Reason: Update
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 10:22 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.