|
Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Many great responses, but your question was what should you say in your appeal letter.
What appeal? How can you appeal that which you do not know to appeal. You may as well appeal the score of tomorrow's superbowl score. As you already know you have numerous possible challanges. And no clue what they are referring to. Have a funny feeling this may have more to do with an interview. Job or neighbor. If you can afford it perhaps your best bet is have an attorney appeal for you. With the goal to get to the bottom of the DQ reasoning. If not then put your own together. Focusing on all positive aspects. As someone pointed out, forget about other state permits. They have no value, in this argument. And they already are well aware of your clearness to carry as a security guard. So forget these things and focus on every positive aspect you can think of. Perhaps in the process of the interview they may tip their hand as to what the problem is. What's happening is not right. They need to disclose objection or issue permit. |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It could be as simple as neighbor that didn't like you and painted you in an unflattering light. As others have said, in the absence of a statement fro SBSD as to why you were denied, we are all forced to guess...
__________________
Discreet, Legal Carry in 37 States... |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'm so damn confused. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If he had a conviction that was prohibiting, or anything blatant that the interviewer knew about at the time of application, he would not have moved on to Livescan or handed over the money orders. This was something that turned up from the employment, neighborhood, or DOJ checks. I'd start chatting with neighbors to see if you can figure out who was talked to and what they may have said. I've heard that one or two of the investigating officers appear to be very interested in any racist comments.
__________________
- Rich |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
I convinced a friend of mine from work to apply for his permit. His wife applied also. He was denied and she is walking around today with a Ruger LC9 tucked in her pocket. His letter was similar to yours, denied due to moral character issues.
He had an arrest that was voided for having a concealed gun in the car when he was in his teens (18-19). He is in his late 30s now. The car he was in was not his car, he was driving it home after the car's owner was arrested while he was a passenger. He was stopped by a different officer while on his way home who pulled him from the car and found a loaded handgun hidden in the dashboard. Now...as I said the arrest had been voided. His friend copped to being the owner of the gun and my friend's complete ignorance of its existence. When my friend applied a few years later for a professional license, it was held up due to the arrest. He spent another 8 months waiting for his professional license so that he could work. The reason was that he had disclosed the incident but that it had not shown up on his criminal records. The licensing authority held up his professional license in order to verify his ID and his record. Flash forward almost 20 years and he is applying for his SB permit. He was told by the licensing authority that the arrest was not on his record during his fiasco with the professional license. Now...even though he was told MULTIPLE TIMES by the CCW unit investigator, and also by me, to reveal EVERYTHING, he decided that this was going to cause an issue if he revealed it and since it was not on his criminal record they would never know. WRONG!! The police, of course, have access to every aspect of your criminal history. Arrests. Detentions. Convictions. Sentences. Everything. They found it. Since he was told multiple times to disclose everything he was denied due to moral character issues. Even though the arrest was a mistake and he was completely innocent at the time he was STILL arrested and did not reveal it. Lack of integrity=poor moral character=no permit for you.
__________________
Last edited by TurboS600; 02-06-2016 at 9:55 PM.. |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That is the next step better than "dismissed" or "not charged"
__________________
- Rich |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Everything was disclosed, as I was well aware of the far-reaching hands of the investigator. I was honest, transparent, and accountable. It just didn't work out for me, THIS time. Hopefully it will the next time when I reapply. Thanks for your time. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
OP
Your response to the denial being related to your neighbors or coworkers tells me you do know why.
__________________
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" -- Thomas Jefferson |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
He says he had "multiple" convictions, the first was in 1992 and the last was in 2005. So....... how many were in between?
Most people go their whole lives with ever getting a conviction for anything other than traffic violations. The fact that you had at least 2, probably more since you've kind of been dodging that point, in a 13 year span, as an adult, probably didn't look too good for you. You sound like you've turned your life around in the last 10 years, and deserve a CCW, but unfortunately it's a may-issue county, and they maybe just didn't like your personality, or the way you dressed, or they were still upset about a fight with their spouse earlier that day... could be anything. As mentioned before, try to get them to give you something, anything, that was the reason for your denial, so you can properly formulate an appeal. It's not fair (although, probably legal) for them not to. It's like going into into a murder trial, and the prosecution won't tell your legal team what evidence they have against you (although, that's probably illegal). If they won't provide you with anything, maybe just skip the appeal and try again next year.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
I suggested that he have some conversations. I don't recall MudWeed making that claim.
__________________
- Rich |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
They talk to neighbors? I don't think they did that for my permit in OC. Heck, most people don't even know their neighbor's name.
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Some counties do, yes. Mine certainly didn't. Mine didn't even call my employer, even though I used them as my good cause. But some counties really go nuts trying to dig up everything they can about you, including social media.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Ostensibly to confirm residency (that you actually spend 51% of your time in the county), but they also ask about your character. It has been reported that some officers indicate that it is a non-criminal background investigation for a county permit, but seems that most simply tell the neighbor it is for a CCW. They also send a letter to your employer with some multiple choice questions regarding your reliability and job performance and one blank for comments.
__________________
- Rich |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If asked, my neighbors would have replied "I don't even know his name, he's almost never here". It's probably just semantics I'm guessing, they probably just don't want you to have a different home in another county that you spend more time at. Anyways, back to our regularly scheduled arguing
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There are a lot of people that live in LA County, and have cabins in Big Bear. The "51%" doesn't seem to mean 51% of the day or week... it's just a relative measure of if they actually LIVE there, vs only there weekends, or a few weeks a year.
__________________
- Rich |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If one has had legal issues in the past and has been able to keep his nose clean for the past ten years, as far as the law is concerned, maybe checking with neighbors/employer is a deciding factor. It can even depend on where you live as far as getting away with whatever you have a problem with. I had an friend who's son kept getting busted for driving without a license. Her son thought it was so unfair He moved and the problem went away because local PD didn't know him.
__________________
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" -- Thomas Jefferson |
#61
|
||||
|
||||
They talk to neighbors?
Quote:
He came to my house and spoke with me, and I assume he spoke with (or tried to speak) with my neighbors as well.
__________________
Discreet, Legal Carry in 37 States... |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In your example, getting busted without a license would most certainly leave a paper trail for the IA to base it's decision on. In contrast, simply talking to neighbors/employers is just taking someone's word that so-and-so shouldn't have a right to carry a gun for self defense. To some of us, that's a world of difference. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
All of us are speculating, including the OP.
Being turned down from a county that hands out permits pretty easily, we all must wonder why. When I was granted a permit in SB County quite a while ago, I never knew the SD interviewed my neighbors, maybe they didn't. They did show up at my office and visited with my employer and myself for quite a while...very positive meeting. The only thing I could come up with was OP's response in post 16. He wasn't surprised if one of his neighbors had issues with himself. BTW, approaching ones neighbors and asking about a possible interview is, in my book, a bad idea unless you have a great relationship with all of them. I don't know how SBSD currently conducts interviews with neighbors. Is it in fact just a resident check? If so, the neighbors wouldn't know what the check was for. As OP stated, it's hard to appeal without reason for denial. We all have done stupid things in our past. Some in the distant past, some pretty recently. He wasn't turned down for other states so the only investigative difference would be interviewing the neighbors. Everything else is a matter of record, or lack their of. Or it could be he's getting treated unfairly which isn't very likely.
__________________
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" -- Thomas Jefferson |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Fair enough, though I wouldn't call 'fair treatment' any denial that does not involve proper judicial due-process. In my book, a sheriff that applies ANY discretion is using unfair treatment by definition because no (other) rights are subject to discretion, but alas, that is the law.
It's kind of funny in a perverse way when you think about it: Though at first he required GC, the sheriff now openly supports the Peruta decision, which is a decision that basically says discretion as far as GC is unconstitutional because rights are not subject to discretion, but yet he is pro-discretion on other basis. I'm sure that when and if GMC is struck down using Peruta partially as basis (if it survives the 9th's antics), this sheriff will fully "support" that decision then. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Yes I agree about the due-process.
I have plenty of friends, family members and acquaintances that would pass a background check and receive a permit in my county, if they would apply. That said, I would never, ever encourage it for some. I wouldn't want to be in gunshot range of them if they carried. I guess if I lived in a "free state", I'd probably have a different mindset.
__________________
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" -- Thomas Jefferson |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
That's what it's all about: Mindset. It's a "mini" version of the same mindset that antis have: While you may not trust SOME innocent folks with guns, antis don't trust any, so it's just a matter of degree, not kind. Still, on the free portions of the United States the sky does not fall and people don't go around shooting each other because they enjoy constitutional carry. On average, private citizens who carry are more law abiding than even cops (who pass an even more exhaustive background check). This illusion that may-issue is somehow helpful in any way, shape or form is just that: A complete and utter illusion.
I've known a couple of "those" people you mentioned. They have passed a background checked and gotten the sheriff's seal of approval to carry. They are not the sort of people that I would trust with a water gun at a range, let alone a real one on the streets, but the Sheriff and state do. If you think that may-issue prevents knuckleheads from carrying, I've got a bridge to sell you. Still, as I've said, overall, most carriers are above average folks. What's more, the truly dangerous element (those that have criminal intent to do harm) carry just the same, too, regardless of the law. Those are exactly the sort of things why rights such as the right to carry should not be infringed due to a of a politician's opinion. . Last edited by Nopal; 02-16-2016 at 7:57 AM.. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Well said.
__________________
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" -- Thomas Jefferson |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
OK, Gentlemen... (and I use this term loosely!)
The appeal has been sent and it was essentially a couple of statements that said I am not the man I was 10-25 years ago and if faced with the same set of circumstances today, my decisions would be greatly different. I didn't want to ramble on too long since I had no clue as to what I was appealing anyway. I'm quite sure my "life experiences" are a sticking point in my denial so I focused on that. As far as the other potential "problems" mentioned (neighbors and job), I said it "made sense" as I was new to the neighborhood and I didn't get to meet very many neighbors. I was always cordial and waved at any and all people on the block. However, I'm 6'3", 275lbs and tattooed with a Harley Davidson so by looks alone, I'm no gonna get favorable reviews. I don't know what to think about the work aspect because I recently asked my supervisor if he was contacted by SBSD and he said no. He was the only contact I mentioned for my employer. As far as my interview, I dressed professionally, with a sport coat, button-down shirt, and covered all visible markings. However, I'm pretty confident my investigator was none too impressed with me. She was ALL business, which I can definitely appreciate, but this process was all new to me and I had a few questions along the way just to make sure I was crossing all of my T's and dotting all of my I's. She was none too pleased with my questions, I guess. Again, thank you everyone for your time and your thoughts/insights into my situation. I will post again when I get my response. |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Quite honestly, it was the entire process. From start to finish my investigator seemed irritable. I understand that this person does this every single day and has for many years (they were discussing the process and requirements on the form verbatim!) but it was my first rodeo and given my "life experience" I wanted to make sure I was covering everything that was necessary to complete my application.
|
#72
|
||||
|
||||
I wanted to make sure I was covering everything...
Quote:
However, my go to statement(s) when people are asking for advice or stressing about their interview are the following:
Many people chafe under the pressure and time limits of these interviews and struggle to make sure that interviewer hears whatever they think will help the case. Almost always this is counter productive as it tends to raise more questions than it ever answers.
__________________
Discreet, Legal Carry in 37 States... |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
My investigator gave me a task to complete and I had to deal the with DMV (jumping through rings of fire over snake pits!) to get it done. The wording my investigator gave me was different from the wording I was receiving from the DMV so I called my investigator for clarity. They didn't seem too pleased but I wanted to make sure I was getting exactly what was asked of me.
|
#75
|
||||
|
||||
I understand you don't really want give out private information that is none of our business, but everything is so vague that ppl are forced to continually guess at what the issue may have been.
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
I guess what I was looking for was information on the appeal process and how to go about it. I was given a standard response for the denial with zero specific reasoning. I was looking for anything that could help without getting too detailed into my application.
|
#77
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Not saying you are or are not affiliated, but given some of the "relationships" the department has had with some of the clubs in the area, I would imagine that membership or affiliation with any 3-piece would be a disqualifier... certainly any ties to a 1% club.
__________________
- Rich |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
It never came up during my interview. I was clean shaven and well dressed, showing no visible markings, so my investigator had no clue as to my motorcycle or tattoos.
I'm sure the impression I leave with people, based on looks alone, is intimidating or threatening, but that is all it is... an impression. That might have been good enough for my investigator. I understand the law enforcement perception on the 1%er clubs and their members. I am not a member or in any way affiliated with any 3-piece club. However, being that I look like one because I have tattoos and ride a Harley shouldn't automatically lump me in with those guys. Nonetheless, I understand. I'd err on the side of caution as well, if that was the basis for their decision. |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
This is just sad.
Let the interviewer control the conversation. Be mindful of what neighbors would say. Appearances count. Yep, sounds like a fair and utterly constitutional process to me. On the SBSD thread I posted a jab about looks being a disqualifying basis. I thought it was just an empty jab but maybe it isn't. Sorry for your denial MudWeeds. Some people are out there trying to give people the impression that the SBSD is completely pro-2A and "virtual shall issue," when "mostly does-issue" and sort-of-pro 2A fit them better. Good luck with your appeal. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, Nopal.
Without giving the reason(s) for the denial, we are all just left to guess as to what went wrong. By no means am I trying to bash the SBSD because I was denied a permit, I'd only like an explanation why so I could address the issue head on instead of penning an appeal based on what I thought it could have been. I think it is unfair that I am given one attempt (and the decision is final) to try to appeal the decision when I have no clue as to what the decision was based on. I still do not understand how a friend of mine has a weapons AND drug charges against him (within the last 5 years) and he was issued a permit. It doesn't add up, but then again, a lot of things don't and it isn't my job to solve the Rubick's Cube! Now the wait time to get an interview is almost one year's time. This is going to be fun... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|