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
  #81  
Old 02-06-2011, 11:02 PM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains (Santa Clara County)
Posts: 3,098
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flopper View Post
Are we there yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luieburger View Post
I check for the "Santa Clara - **TIME TO APPLY**" thread every day. We're all chomping at the bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
He inferred 2 weeks but really meant 2 months!

I'm sure the delay will be worth it when Brandon and the guys publish all the GC statements and tell us to go apply!

This is a true test in patience!
The fact that Brandon and the others working on this have ignored our obvious probes for information means they must be really, really close to publishing the GC. Otherwise, they would have told us to STFU by now!
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-07-2011, 9:53 AM
Flopper's Avatar
Flopper Flopper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,285
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
Preston had corruption evidence on Laurie Smith 2 years ago. What happened with that?
I'm curious as well.

Quite a few people wouldn't be too sad if US Marshals showed up at her office with a federal warrant.
__________________
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. -- L. Neil Smith

Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-15-2011, 12:20 AM
CharAznable CharAznable is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,865
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
We're close to posting the approved GC statements for SC County.
It's been a bit over a month - are we any closer?
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-15-2011, 11:35 AM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 892
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharAznable View Post
It's been a bit over a month - are we any closer?
Are we any closer? Yes! How much closer? I couldn't tell you
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-15-2011, 1:05 PM
Monticore Monticore is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 497
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

It would be great if this would coincide with the events from the "Any Updates on Cal-Guns fight against the High Cap magazine ban..." thread in the main 2A forum.

Getting a CCW with standard(high) capacity magazines in Santa Clara County would be quite the impressive feat.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
"The Roster of Death; Criminals Can Have Any Gun They Want, YOU CAN'T! Now, DIE!"
Borrowed from joefreas:
”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”

Borrowed from The Shadow:
"Controlling crime by regulating guns is like controlling obesity by regulating the size of spoons." - Lou Gohmert (R) Congressman from Texas; Appeared on Fox News on 16 January 2011
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-15-2011, 1:24 PM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains (Santa Clara County)
Posts: 3,098
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monticore View Post
It would be great if this would coincide with the events from the "Any Updates on Cal-Guns fight against the High Cap magazine ban..." thread in the main 2A forum.

Getting a CCW with standard(high) capacity magazines in Santa Clara County would be quite the impressive feat.
Don't be greedy! One thing at a time, starting with Santa Clara County CCW!
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-15-2011, 1:27 PM
Monticore Monticore is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 497
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
Don't be greedy! One thing at a time, starting with Santa Clara County CCW!
Quite true. What's the use of a 15 round mag that I can only use at the range?

Can one of the people in the know respond back and tell us SCC CCW is 2 weeks away still? Just so we know we haven't been forgotten about.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
"The Roster of Death; Criminals Can Have Any Gun They Want, YOU CAN'T! Now, DIE!"
Borrowed from joefreas:
”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”

Borrowed from The Shadow:
"Controlling crime by regulating guns is like controlling obesity by regulating the size of spoons." - Lou Gohmert (R) Congressman from Texas; Appeared on Fox News on 16 January 2011
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-15-2011, 1:45 PM
Texas Boy's Avatar
Texas Boy Texas Boy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 779
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Anyone been reading the "good cause" statements for other counties? I certainly haven't read them all, but I see a lot of "I own my own business, carry large sums of cash (or valuable equipment), and travel through bad parts of town at odd hours" type statements. I'm having a tough time visualizing how I would adapt most of these statements to my current situation.

For the majority of us who probably don't own a business and who probably live in a somewhat decent part of town and try to avoid the bad areas, I'm wondering if there will be a good cause statement that doesn't require some very creative wording....
__________________
...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-15-2011, 2:06 PM
emilio emilio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere between Apple, Google, and Intel.
Posts: 390
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

jeeze, if we got reliable good cause statements in Santa Clara...

well, that would be super rad, but also totally awful! why? i'd have to buy or build a nice carry piece! i swear, you people are so shortsighted, don't you know there's an economic crunch on?!

- emilio
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-15-2011, 3:47 PM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains (Santa Clara County)
Posts: 3,098
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilio View Post
jeeze, if we got reliable good cause statements in Santa Clara...

well, that would be super rad, but also totally awful! why? i'd have to buy or build a nice carry piece! i swear, you people are so shortsighted, don't you know there's an economic crunch on?!

- emilio
I'm very interested in the next steps but I'm not so sure the publication of GC Statements automatically equates to you buying your carry piece. Somehow I think there will be more to it than that. I don't think Sheriff Smith is going to just start doling out CCW's!

I would like to hear from the conspicuously silent Brandon on what the next steps will be once GC Statements are available. Do we find one that was approved that hopefully is similar to our own situation and apply? And if we are rejected then sue? Or something entirely different. I just don't know.



PS: I think you are the shortsighted one. I already have my three carry pieces, ready to list on my application. What have you been doing the past few years during all the hype and build up?
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 02-15-2011, 4:39 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm betting that Peruta screwed us because in that case, they ruled (in essence, as I recall) that "equal protection" as applied to the CCW process only works when both the written GC statement and the oral interview contain essentially the same things.

If there's no formal record of the oral interviews then the SD can claim, without any evidence, that what you said in your oral interview differs substantially from what was said in the oral interview of the person whose good cause statement you're using as a basis for yours. And since they're a law enforcement agency, I'm sure they will be taken at their word on that.

If there is a formal record of the interview, then as long as the record isn't a full recording of the interview itself, the information that gets recorded will be at the discretion of the interviewer, and that means the interviewer can ensure that what they record for your is not the same as what was recorded for the person you're using as a reference for your good cause statement.


No, I strongly suspect (but have no proof) that we're pretty much done in Santa Clara and other "stronghold" counties. I strongly suspect that Peruta put a spike through the heart of any "equal protection" challenges that might be brought forth.

That means we have to wait for Richards or some other case to hit the Supreme Court (you don't really think the 9th is going to rule in our favor in Richards, do you?). And even after that, as long as the Sheriff has any discretion, they'll use it against us. For instance, they may have to accept "self defense" as a good cause statement, but that does not mean that they can't refuse to issue on the basis of "good moral character". And Richards doesn't touch on that at all that I know of.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-16-2011, 9:36 AM
CharAznable CharAznable is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,865
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Then not to sound totally bitter (which I will), but here's hoping for cuts to the Sheriff's department similar to what's being talked about for the SJPD. Since they have no duty to protect us and won't let us protect ourselves then here's to hoping we get rid of most of them and maybe spend our money elsewhere...

Oh, and thanks Peruta. Thanks so much....
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-16-2011, 10:23 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Only one problem with your statement, kc: You're assuming that all counties do personal interviews.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-16-2011, 10:42 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm betting that Peruta screwed us because in that case, they ruled (in essence, as I recall) that "equal protection" as applied to the CCW process only works when both the written GC statement and the oral interview contain essentially the same things.

If there's no formal record of the oral interviews then the SD can claim, without any evidence, that what you said in your oral interview differs substantially from what was said in the oral interview of the person whose good cause statement you're using as a basis for yours. And since they're a law enforcement agency, I'm sure they will be taken at their word on that.

If there is a formal record of the interview, then as long as the record isn't a full recording of the interview itself, the information that gets recorded will be at the discretion of the interviewer, and that means the interviewer can ensure that what they record for your is not the same as what was recorded for the person you're using as a reference for your good cause statement.
Then you haul the licensee who was approved into court during a trial and examine, and you then haul the interviewer and their command staff who made the decision and you pull them into the witness stand.

That was, I believe, the critical mistake of the Peruta case, when there's facts in dispute, you always want a trial to flesh out the facts. This is why the Perry case involving Proposition 8 worked out so well for the plaintiffs, because they had a trial.

Brandon went into great detail in another Peruta thread about "giving San Diego enough rope to hang the plaintiff". That is precisely what happened there. Guillory v. Gates, at it's core, was about not being able to put the Sheriff and his employees on the witness stand to question about equal protection issues and oral interviews.

Quote:
That means we have to wait for Richards or some other case to hit the Supreme Court (you don't really think the 9th is going to rule in our favor in Richards, do you?). And even after that, as long as the Sheriff has any discretion, they'll use it against us. For instance, they may have to accept "self defense" as a good cause statement, but that does not mean that they can't refuse to issue on the basis of "good moral character". And Richards doesn't touch on that at all that I know of.
Richards actually does deal with good moral character. You're also forgetting the Nordyke factor.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-16-2011, 2:04 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Then you haul the licensee who was approved into court during a trial and examine, and you then haul the interviewer and their command staff who made the decision and you pull them into the witness stand.
And get them during the questioning how, exactly? This all becomes a matter of "he said, she said", and statements by LEOs/LEAs are always given greater weight than those by ordinary people.


Quote:
That was, I believe, the critical mistake of the Peruta case, when there's facts in dispute, you always want a trial to flesh out the facts. This is why the Perry case involving Proposition 8 worked out so well for the plaintiffs, because they had a trial.
But a fleshing out the facts in a trial only works in your favor if the discovered facts are what you need them to be. Why do you think that is how it will play out, particularly when (a) the court will give greater weight to the statements of the LEOs/LEAs than to those of normal people and (b) the LEOs/LEAs have plenty of reason to lie through their teeth, and can get away with it as long as they're consistent with whatever happens to be on record?



Quote:
Richards actually does deal with good moral character. You're also forgetting the Nordyke factor.
At this rate, we're likely to have Constitutional carry here in California long before Nordyke actually gets decided.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-16-2011, 2:19 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Only one problem with your statement, kc: You're assuming that all counties do personal interviews.
I'm betting all the "stronghold" ones do, because they're going to do everything they can to make the process as annoying and painful as possible, and to give themselves as much excuse as possible to reject your application.

Interestingly enough, though, Santa Clara doesn't appear to be such a county. And that really makes one wonder what's holding things up there, doesn't it?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-16-2011, 2:47 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And get them during the questioning how, exactly? This all becomes a matter of "he said, she said", and statements by LEOs/LEAs are always given greater weight than those by ordinary people.

But a fleshing out the facts in a trial only works in your favor if the discovered facts are what you need them to be. Why do you think that is how it will play out, particularly when (a) the court will give greater weight to the statements of the LEOs/LEAs than to those of normal people and (b) the LEOs/LEAs have plenty of reason to lie through their teeth, and can get away with it as long as they're consistent with whatever happens to be on record?
That's not the point. The point being is that in county where only the politically powerful have licenses, the same politically powerful individuals, who will get subpoenas hauling them into court to testify as to interactions with the sheriff's office when they applied for their licenses, will make phone calls to the sheriff's re-election campaign and demand that the sheriff settle or else they pull the fundraising for themselves, their friends and colleagues, etc. Unless they are true died in the wool anti-gunners, they want to protect their families as much as any of the "normal folk", and will not tolerate being questioned in court. That's probably one of the bigger reasons Brad Gates settled in Orange County.

Chess, not checkers.

Btw, the gathering of good cause data is independent of equal protection litigation (of which I'm not aware of any such litigation in particular with Santa Clara). Such litigations would have such good cause data, under seal with full names, whereas the CGF Initiative Effort purely wants the good cause out there without the use of names or other personally identifying data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
At this rate, we're likely to have Constitutional carry here in California long before Nordyke actually gets decided.
Ye of little faith.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-16-2011 at 2:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-16-2011, 3:15 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm betting all the "stronghold" ones do, because they're going to do everything they can to make the process as annoying and painful as possible, and to give themselves as much excuse as possible to reject your application.

Interestingly enough, though, Santa Clara doesn't appear to be such a county. And that really makes one wonder what's holding things up there, doesn't it?
Let's be clear here: The Peruta litigation has zero to do with the release of the redacted good cause. None whatsoever.

We're delving into a realm of speculation about equal protection, given the cryptic statements of Billy Jack in terms of his website and his "Do you know the way to San Jose". Let's make sure we separate out those issues in our discussions, OK?

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-16-2011 at 3:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-16-2011, 3:50 PM
emilio emilio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere between Apple, Google, and Intel.
Posts: 390
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
I'm very interested in the next steps but I'm not so sure the publication of GC Statements automatically equates to you buying your carry piece. Somehow I think there will be more to it than that. I don't think Sheriff Smith is going to just start doling out CCW's!
absolutely, i'm just on the slippery slope of wishful thinking. baby steps, baby steps...

is there any use in applying now, knowing it will likely be rejected? that is, can we learn anything useful? is there a desire to have rejected CCW applicants from various socioeconomic and political backgrounds?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
PS: I think you are the shortsighted one. I already have my three carry pieces, ready to list on my application. What have you been doing the past few years during all the hype and build up?
lol, paying student loans! i have a suitable carry piece in that it's reliable and nasty things come out the front, but it's also a full-size 1911. mmm, but i could get an HK.45C or build a bobtailed commander 1911...

- emilio
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-16-2011, 3:54 PM
Flopper's Avatar
Flopper Flopper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,285
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilio View Post
i have a suitable carry piece in that it's reliable and nasty things come out the front, but it's also a full-size 1911.

- emilio
In my experience full-size 1911's are not difficult to CCW whatsoever.

Get a good CCW carry rig and practice carrying it around in your home or wherever else it's legal to do so.
__________________
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. -- L. Neil Smith

Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 02-16-2011, 4:48 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
That's not the point. The point being is that in county where only the politically powerful have licenses, the same politically powerful individuals, who will get subpoenas hauling them into court to testify as to interactions with the sheriff's office when they applied for their licenses, will make phone calls to the sheriff's re-election campaign and demand that the sheriff settle or else they pull the fundraising for themselves, their friends and colleagues, etc. Unless they are true died in the wool anti-gunners, they want to protect their families as much as any of the "normal folk", and will not tolerate being questioned in court. That's probably one of the bigger reasons Brad Gates settled in Orange County.

Chess, not checkers.
That is a consideration in our favor, to be sure.

I can't say how likely it is that any such person is going to be willing to testify in court in order to keep their privilege "special", but I would imagine that the motivation to do so is significant. Possibly not as significant as the motivation to avoid testifying, however...

Remember that the sitting sheriff will be explaining to the politically powerful people in question that if he capitulates, they lose their "special" status as regards CCW. And those politically powerful people wouldn't want to be around a bunch of ordinary joes carrying firearms, now would they?


Quote:
Btw, the gathering of good cause data is independent of equal protection litigation (of which I'm not aware of any such litigation in particular with Santa Clara). Such litigations would have such good cause data, under seal with full names, whereas the CGF Initiative Effort purely wants the good cause out there without the use of names or other personally identifying data.
You appear to misunderstand why I tie the "good cause" initiative and "equal protection" cases together the way I do. In a "may issue" environment, the prospect (or, perhaps, outcome) of an "equal protection" suit is the only incentive an anti-gun sheriff would have to issue a CCW permit to a "non-special" person when said person's "good cause" statement is the same as that of one of the "special" people who have already been issued to.

Were it not for that, the sheriff would be able to deny the permit of the "non special" person even if that person's "good cause" were identical to that of someone who was issued a permit. Which is to say, the "sunshine initiative" can't do any real good without the "equal protection" teeth behind it. It can't help politically because sitting sheriffs are essentially undefeatable at the polls.

Unless, of course, there's something critical that I'm missing here...


Quote:
Ye of little faith.
History appears to be on my side on that one....
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-17-2011, 6:41 AM
the big ravioli's Avatar
the big ravioli the big ravioli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Benito County
Posts: 1,103
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

If & when they decide. I'm ready to apply... I'm also ready with my new Glock 39!
__________________

NRA Life Member

Loved By Some, Hated By Many, Respected By All..
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-19-2011, 3:28 AM
247Nino's Avatar
247Nino 247Nino is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 1,838
iTrader: 85 / 100%
Default

I want
__________________
Saiga 12 IZ-109
FML-47 AK Pistols
RUST BLUING MY M70B1/AB2

EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-28-2011, 5:10 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

$100.00 sponsored for Santa Clara.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-28-2011, 11:37 PM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,420
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilio View Post
jeeze, if we got reliable good cause statements in Santa Clara... well, that would be super rad, but also totally awful! why? i'd have to buy or build a nice carry piece! i swear, you people are so shortsighted, don't you know there's an economic crunch on?! - emilio

Would that be Emilio Castanan?
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 03-04-2011, 3:51 PM
SiegeX's Avatar
SiegeX SiegeX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 177
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Somebody help me with my ignorance, but what exactly is the driving force causing counties such as Sacramento and perhaps even our county of Santa Clara to move to a "shall issue" stance on CCW? It's certainly not out of the kindness of their heart

Last edited by SiegeX; 03-04-2011 at 3:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 03-04-2011, 3:56 PM
Flopper's Avatar
Flopper Flopper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,285
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegeX View Post
Somebody help me with my ignorance, but what exactly is the driving force causing the dominos to fall so to speak that, causing counties such as Sacramento and perhaps even our county of Santa Clara to move to a "shall issue" stance on CCW?
The non and very limited issue sheriffs and chiefs of police are breaking the law and violating the Constitution, mostly the sections that have to do with equal protection and due process, but there are many other areas of violation/non-compliance.

Reading this http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.p...ccw-initiative should give you a start on all the issues involved.
__________________
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. -- L. Neil Smith

Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 03-04-2011, 6:53 PM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains (Santa Clara County)
Posts: 3,098
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
We have good cause info in hand, but it will take a couple of weeks to redact and scan. Please stay patient - Santa Clara is on the radar.
Brandon, can you shed some light on what is going on? You wrote the above on 12/8, almost three months ago! I can't imagine it is taking this long to redact and scan especially when you previously thought it would take a couple weeks (by not saying 2 weeks you seem to have actually meant it).

I suspect you guys are holding the GC statements back for some reason. Can you let us in on the secret?
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 03-04-2011, 7:57 PM
blakdawg's Avatar
blakdawg blakdawg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Butte/Santa Clara counties
Posts: 1,505
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Alternatively, do you need more volunteers to work on redacting the applications?
__________________
"[T]he liberties of the American people [are] dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box . . without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country." -- Frederick Douglass (1892)
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 03-04-2011, 8:02 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hell, I work in Northern Santa Clara... I can't be far from the office.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 03-08-2011, 10:11 PM
sirgiles's Avatar
sirgiles sirgiles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,356
iTrader: 129 / 99%
Default

bump for update.
__________________
"I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations and you're not in this world to live up to mine."

Bruce Lee
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 03-08-2011, 10:24 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
Brandon, can you shed some light on what is going on? You wrote the above on 12/8, almost three months ago! I can't imagine it is taking this long to redact and scan especially when you previously thought it would take a couple weeks (by not saying 2 weeks you seem to have actually meant it).

I suspect you guys are holding the GC statements back for some reason. Can you let us in on the secret?
Sorry for the delay, but you'll understand soon why I say that I can't comment much on this for now...
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 03-09-2011, 11:13 AM
heyjerr's Avatar
heyjerr heyjerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 787
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Living in Mountain View, I just called to have the department mail me their CCW policy. Should I hold off following up with them directly until I see something posted here?
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 03-09-2011, 11:28 AM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not commenting directly on your question, plz do provide us a copy of what you receive... I also am in Mountain View and am well interested in what they claim their policy is.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 03-09-2011, 12:02 PM
Pat Riot Pat Riot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Sorry for the delay, but you'll understand soon why I say that I can't comment much on this for now...
Should we start getting our applications ready?
__________________
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 03-09-2011, 5:58 PM
CharAznable CharAznable is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,865
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Sorry for the delay, but you'll understand soon why I say that I can't comment much on this for now...
Can you hint how soon "soon" is? Don't say two weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 03-20-2011, 8:31 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Exclamation

Quote:
11-202
Requested By: relator Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers' Association, Inc.
Assigned To: Deputy Attorney General Taylor S. Carey

Question(s):

Are Laurie Smith and John Hirokawa unlawfully holding the offices of Sheriff, Undersheriff and Santa Clara County Chief of Corrections?
Legal Opinions Monthly Opinion Report (not yet published).



Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 03-20-2011, 10:04 PM
Pat Riot Pat Riot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like they haven't published an opinion yet this year. Any idea on how long this usually takes?
__________________
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 03-21-2011, 9:01 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,274
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Sorry for the delay, but you'll understand soon why I say that I can't comment much on this for now...
It's been 2 weeks, out with it!

Seriously though, is CGF in possession of the documents or is the SO not providing them?
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

New NRA Campaign to Liberals: "Afraid of a tryannical Trump Administration? Buy a gun..."
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 03-21-2011, 7:17 PM
TabascoFiend TabascoFiend is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Legal Opinions Monthly Opinion Report (not yet published).



Erik.
Could someone elaborate on what this means for those of use that are not familiar with how these questions/opinions work. Was there more information or background that would have been submitted with this "question" which would establish some sort of legal question? Obviously, the submitters suspect/believe that there is something illegal about the situation, but it certainly isn't clear what that is based on the very general question. Are the legal requirements/qualifications for being the Santa Clara SO documented somewhere?

Tom
__________________
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 2:20 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.