California Sheriffs and candidates plan to issue more concealed handgun permits!

imported post

More stories on California sheriffs promising to liberally issue concealed handgun permits:

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2148151.html

SNIP


Candidate Craig Therkildsen, a captain with the department, said he would streamline the process and accept self-protection as sufficient cause.

"El Dorado County is a very safe place to live, but no street is 100 percent safe," he said.

Ernest Hillman, who served as undersheriff with the department before retiring, said he would eliminate the requirement to provide three letters of reference attesting to the applicant's good character. Such letters are of little value, he said, unless you investigate the letter writer's background.

Asked to define good cause, John D'Agostini, an investigator with the Amador County District Attorney's Office and a former Amador County sheriff's deputy said, "Self-protection, simple as that."

Larry Hennick, who served 32 years with the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department, replied, "U.S. citizen." His policy, Hennick said, would be "apply and receive."

Bob Luca, retired chief of the California Bureau of Investigation, said the attorney general's opinion should be interpreted as guidelines, not law. But while he favors a "shall issue" policy, Luca said, California is not a "shall issue" state, and the sheriff must abide by state law.

George Nielsen, Placerville police chief, said his policy would be to help concealed weapons applicants articulate good cause. One, he said, is the danger posed by the potential early release of some state prison inmates.

Perez said he would clarify what constitutes good cause.

"You won't have to define good cause," he told potential applicants. "I will have already done that for you."


http://www.sacbee.com/news/story/2133266.html?storylink=lingospot_related_articles

And see San Bernadino permit issuance soaring 730%: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/forums/posts.aspx?postID=18270&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

imported post

Not to stir the hornets nest, but what does this have to do with open carry?

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

Not to stir the hornets nest, but what does this have to do with open carry?

Click to expand...

These decisions might be a result of the fact that people are OCing in CA.

imported post

One could infer from the article that the Sheriff will voluntarily issue CCDW in response to the increase in open carry incidents.

imported post

One can see a clear path towards using Shall Issue as a concession to close the "OC Loophole."

imported post

This could also be considered evidence to the contrary of the belief that open carrying will cause us to lose our rights, as it may be that open carry contributed to these new promises.

imported post

N00blet45 wrote:

This could also be considered evidence to the contrary of the belief that open carrying will cause us to lose our rights, as it may be that open carry contributed to these new promises.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It is likely that the 0somewhate neutered0 RIGHT to OC in CA will be sacrificed to get the privilege of CC made into 'shall issue.'

Then there will be no right left at all, just a less restricted, but still restricted, privilege.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

ConditionThree wrote:

Not to stir the hornets nest, but what does this have to do with open carry?

Click to expand...

These decisions might be a result of the fact that people are OCing in CA.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are those who believe that UOC in California has instigated additional legislative action to inhibit the practice. Most notably, the expansion of the gun free school zone form 1000 feet to 1500 feet is being attributed to my actions as well as others like me.

This is more probably a reaction to the budget crisis eliminating patrols and releasing convicts.

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

ixtow wrote:

ConditionThree wrote:

Not to stir the hornets nest, but what does this have to do with open carry?

Click to expand...

These decisions might be a result of the fact that people are OCing in CA.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are those who believe that UOC in California has instigated additional legislative action to inhibit the practice. Most notably, the expansion of the gun free school zone form 1000 feet to 1500 feet is being attributed to my actions as well as others like me.

This is more probably a reaction to the budget crisis eliminating patrols and releasing convicts.

Click to expand...

Mostly politics...fund the Sheriff's office or he/she will start issuing CCW's. But this is based on the additional fact that they are considering releasing so many prisoners. Additionally there is somewhat of a ground swell in support of issuing CCW's, and of course these guys (at least in my county) are coming up for re-election next year.

As much as I would like to give credit to the UOC movement, I doubt its having any realimpact on the CCW policies in this state.

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

ConditionThree wrote:

ixtow wrote:

ConditionThree wrote:

Not to stir the hornets nest, but what does this have to do with open carry?

Click to expand...

These decisions might be a result of the fact that people are OCing in CA.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are those who believe that UOC in California has instigated additional legislative action to inhibit the practice. Most notably, the expansion of the gun free school zone form 1000 feet to 1500 feet is being attributed to my actions as well as others like me.

This is more probably a reaction to the budget crisis eliminating patrols and releasing convicts.

Click to expand...

Mostly politics...fund the Sheriff's office or he/she will start issuing CCW's. But this is based on the additional fact that they are considering releasing so many prisoners. Additionally there is somewhat of a ground swell in support of issuing CCW's, and of course these guys (at least in my county) are coming up for re-election next year.

As much as I would like to give credit to the UOC movement, I doubt its having any realimpact on the CCW policies in this state.

Click to expand...

In a way, I hope you're right. OC would, no doubt, be the first sacrifice tossed on the altar of whatever is being bargained for.

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

Not to stir the hornets nest, but what does this have to do with open carry?

Click to expand...

Easy. If more and more people are carrying loaded firearms concealed, then what sense does it make insisting that open carry ofthe very samefirearm have that firearm unloaded.

imported post

Statkowski wrote:

ConditionThree wrote:

Not to stir the hornets nest, but what does this have to do with open carry?

Click to expand...

Easy. If more and more people are carrying loaded firearms concealed, then what sense does it make insisting that open carry ofthe very samefirearm have that firearm unloaded.

Click to expand...

Give me a license, or give me death!

Doesn't exactly have the same ring as liberty does it? Just sayin'.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

One can see a clear path towards using Shall Issue as a concession to close the "OC Loophole."

Click to expand...

Or one can see the law abiding citizens using it as leverage to show that a firearm doesn't have to be converted to a hammer (unloaded) to be safe to carry.

Our experience here in Utah has been that we have been able to use the massive numbers of concealed permits with a minimal number of problems to gain additional freedom for all gun owners both CC and OC.

One of the recent gains that can be largely attributed to the number of concealed permits is that there is no longer any restriction on carrying a handgun in a vehicle. Open, concealed, loaded, unloaded, permit, no permit, doesn't matter. As long as you are not prohibited from possessing a firearm you can carry it in any vehicle you legally occupy.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

ixtow wrote:

One can see a clear path towards using Shall Issue as a concession to close the "OC Loophole."

Click to expand...

Or one can see the law abiding citizens using it as leverage to show that a firearm doesn't have to be converted to a hammer (unloaded) to be safe to carry.

Our experience here in Utah has been that we have been able to use the massive numbers of concealed permits with a minimal number of problems to gain additional freedom for all gun owners both CC and OC.

One of the recent gains that can be largely attributed to the number of concealed permits is that there is no longer any restriction on carrying a handgun in a vehicle. Open, concealed, loaded, unloaded, permit, no permit, doesn't matter. As long as you are not prohibited from possessing a firearm you can carry it in any vehicle you legally occupy.

Click to expand...

There is a whole country full of people doing this. Do Fringe-left lawmakers in CA listen?

I doubt it.

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

ixtow wrote:

ConditionThree wrote:

Not to stir the hornets nest, but what does this have to do with open carry?

Click to expand...

These decisions might be a result of the fact that people are OCing in CA.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are those who believe that UOC in California has instigated additional legislative action to inhibit the practice. Most notably, the expansion of the gun free school zone form 1000 feet to 1500 feet is being attributed to my actions as well as others like me.

This is more probably a reaction to the budget crisis eliminating patrols and releasing convicts.

Click to expand...

GFSZ expansion got signed by the governator already? If not, should read "the proposed/pending expansion"...

imported post

So I am not from California and should probably study up on this before asking the question... but I drive through there quite often and break the law by concealing my pistol in my car. I want to apply for my CPL and may have an "in" To obtain one. BUt if they deny my application does that hurt my future chances of obtaining a non-resident CPL?

THanks,

Brian

imported post

ixtow wrote:

There is a whole country full of people doing this. Do Fringe-left lawmakers in CA listen?

I doubt it.

Click to expand...

You doubt it? You're kidding right? They absolutely don't listen. Their ignorance is only exceeded by their arrogance!

imported post

brianstone1985 wrote:

So I am not from California and should probably study up on this before asking the question... but I drive through there quite often and break the law by concealing my pistol in my car. I want to apply for my CPL and may have an "in" To obtain one. BUt if they deny my application does that hurt my future chances of obtaining a non-resident CPL?

THanks,

Brian

Click to expand...

Sadly, although non-resident CCW licenses aren't technically nonexistant, the parameters for obtaining one and renewing oneare very narrow. It would also have a duration of only 90 days and is only valid in the county of issuance.

------------------------

12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the
person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists
for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of
the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a
course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to
that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the
following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000
persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a
license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.
(B) The chief or other head of a municipal police department of
any city or city and county, upon proof that the person applying is
of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and
that the person applying is a resident of that city and has
completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may
issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of
the following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county in which the city is
located is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent
federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in
that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.
(C)...
(D) For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the applicant shall
satisfy any one of the following:
(i) Is a resident of the county or a city within the county.
(ii) Spends a substantial period of time in the applicant's
principal place of employment or business in the county or a city
within the county.
(2) (A) (i) Except as otherwise provided in clause (ii),
subparagraphs (C) and (D) of this paragraph, and subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (4) of subdivision (f), a license issued pursuant to
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) is valid for any period of
time not to exceed two years from the date of the license.
(ii) If the licensee's place of employment or business was the
basis for issuance of the license pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1), the license is valid for any period of time not to
exceed 90 days from the date of the license. The license shall be
valid only in the county in which the license was originally issued.
The licensee shall give a copy of this license to the licensing
authority of the city, county, or city and county in which he or she
resides. The licensing authority that originally issued the license
shall inform the licensee verbally and in writing in at least
16-point type of this obligation to give a copy of the license to the
licensing authority of the city, county, or city and county of
residence. Any application to renew or extend the validity of, or
reissue, the license may be granted only upon the concurrence of the
licensing authority that originally issued the license and the
licensing authority of the city, county, or city and county in which
the licensee resides.

imported post

well that sucks!!

imported post

So if you get a non-resident CC permit it is ok to OC loaded?
(i) , (ii) both seem to say as long as it can be concealed, you can
carry open and loaded. Could this be putting a target on #200,001
trying to move into the neighborhood?

But I am shocked that with all the anti-ca I read you can get permits
for folding stock, and sawed off shotguns.:shock:

The only problem I see with the "change of heart", is last year I recall
a new sheriff blanket revoking every ones permits. So it is still only good
as the nearest trash bin. A nice breath of possible fresh air, but I
think you also need to fix revocation problem also.

Just curious on what the time frame to get the permit is?
Does it expire before you even receive it?

As much as I would like to take my son to see those giant trees,
it is not as important to me as having him reach his 21st birthday.
I was so disgusted by what they have done to carlsbad caverns in
the last 25 years, I shutter to think about how bad yellowstone, and
grand canyon are now. The government is destroying everything
they get their hands on.