AUDIO OF AN INITIAL CCW INTERVIEW 2008

imported post

In late 2008, anticipating the problem with the San Diego Sheriff's inability to understand the difference between Residence and Domicile, I made it a point to carry my tape recorder to the initial interview for my CCW.

Before listening to the audio clip, please read the information regarding the definition of residence which is providedafter and belowthe link.

Here is the audio link: http://www.ourrockyhill.com/1.California%20Issues/Initial%20Interview%20San%20Diego%20CCW%20Application.mp3http://www.ourrockyhill.com/1.California Issues/Initial Interview San Diego CCW Application.mp3

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1309:

Resident. “Any person who occupies a dwelling within the State, has a present intent to remain within the State for a period of time, and manifests the genuineness of that intent by establishing an ongoing physical presence within the State together with indicia that his presence within the State is something other than merely transitory in nature. The word “resident” when used as a noun means a dweller, habitant or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less, duration; it signifies one having a residence, or one who resides or abides. [Hanson v. P.A. Peterson Home Ass’n, 35 Ill.App2d 134, 182 N.E.2d 237, 240] [Underlines added]

Word “resident” has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used. [Kelm v. Carlson, C.A.Ohio, 473, F2d 1267, 1271]

U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet
LEGAL RESIDENCE/DOMICILE

IMPORTANT!!! READ THIS FIRST!!!
The information displayed on this web site is intended for the sole use of active duty service members, retirees, their families, and other personnel eligible for legal assistance from the Brooks Air Force Base Legal Office. Using the information contained in this web site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship between you and the Brooks Air Force Base Legal Office. The information is general in nature and is presented to help those eligible persons prepare for a legal assistance consultation with a judge advocate in the legal office. Rights and responsibilities may vary widely across states, branches of the armed forces, and civilian jurisdictions. In addition, laws are changed from time to time. Do not rely on the general restatements of the background information presented here without discussing your specific situation with a legal professional.

Q: What is the difference between "residence" and "legal residence"?

A:"Residence" simply refers to a place you own, rent, lease, etc. For example, you may own a house in Tennessee, lease a condominium in Florida, and rent an apartment in San Antonio. Each one of these places is a "residence," and you may have more than one. "Legal residence" (also known as "domicile") refers to the state which you call "home." This is the state where you file income tax (if that state has an income tax) and is the state where you intend to return after you get out of the military. You may only have one domicile.

imported post

I have reason to believe that one or more people may be concerned about the legality of my taping the initial formal interview for my CCW.

I am therefore going to post my position knowing full well that it may be read by members of law enforcement.

At the time, Ihad probable cause to believe that members of the San Diego Sheriff's Department were not properly following state law. I also know from years of past experience that public employees easily forget the facts when confronted on their actions.

My position the dayI walked into the first formal interview was clear:

IN FOR A PENNY IN FOR A POUND

I'm aware that someoneMAY attempt to make the case and take some type of action against me for taping the first formal CCW interview and will deal with any issues as they arise.

I placed myrecorder up on the counter in plain view while being interviewed and don't care what happens.

If you listened to the tape, you'll also clearly hear me state on several occasions that I am a member of the New Media and own American News.

I am prepared to argue that PUBLIC employees while performing their PUBLIC duties do NOT have any expectation of PRIVACY while making incorrect statements to members of the public andviolating the law.

There are several areas of the tape where incorrect information is clearly being conveyed and now there is NO way that those statements can be denied.

As for any privacy, I believe, (and am prepared to argue), that the obligation to properly provide information tothe public and perform public duties according to the law, trumps any expectation of privacy on the part of a public employee.

I also know that there will be attempts by thePUBLIC employees involved in my CCW case to twist the facts while attempting to offer what was or wasn'tsaid during the initial formal interview for my CCW.

imported post

Right on Ed! It was interesting hearing them try to weasel out of even acknowledging that you were able to apply for a CCW in San Diego county. I'm sure your audio will prove to be invaluable.

imported post

Any updates?

imported post

The sun is coming up in Missouri, the RV will be heading Southwest to Pheonix then on to Las Vegas to help a veteran with his V.A. Benefits.

Should arrive in my residence (RV)at myS.D. iresidence in10 to 14 days.

Once I arrive I will be able to be more active and hands on.

The Sheriff's Department has 20 days to respond to the suit and I don't expect much to happen before then.

Would like to have face to face meetings with those advocating firearms in San Diego County.

Will also begin attending polictial gatherings while in possession of media credentials.

Ed

imported post

heliopolissolutions wrote:

Any updates?

Click to expand...

Here is a link to the recent filing in Federal Court by the San Diego Sheriff's Department. There appears to be a hearing on this motion scheduled for December 21, 2009 in the Federal Court.

If you have listened to the audio of the original interview and read the California Penal Code, you will see that the issue of residency is very clear. You DO NOT have to be a permanent resident to make an application fora CCW.

This is going to be interesting and may open the CCW process to those that enjoy multiple residences in California and the United States.

Here is the link to the motion to dismiss with my position on Residency, Good Cause and Moral Character.

http://www.ctgunrights.com/00.Webpages/CA.motion.to.Dismiss.htm


P.S. I'll be in the County living in my mobile residence beginning tomorrow November 15th.

imported post

Doing good, Ed, thanks for all the effort you're putting forth. Best of luck with the matter at hand.

imported post

UPDATE:

In the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department has fileda set of Points and Authorities, where they state facts and cite cases that go to the heart of the issues.

Link to the recently filed Points and Authorities filed By San Diego County Sheriff’s Department.

http://ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/12.14.09.SDSO.response.to.oppositon.pdf

The court noted that in Los Angeles County, with a population of over 7 million, the sheriff had issued only 35[/b] licenses, while in Orange County, the sheriff had issued over 400[/b].

Exactly on point, one Sheriff issued 400 STATE CCW PERMITS[/b] while Los Angeles issued only 35.

Until ALL Sheriff’s in California are mandated to use a similar, (if not exact), set of guidelines to determine “GOOD CAUSE”, then individuals who possess good cause in one county will be denied for failing to have good cause in another.

He fails to allege intentional discrimination by the Defendant and appears to claim that the sheriff has his own narrow interpretation[/b] of the residency requirement. As long as that interpretation is consistent[/b], the sheriff is not treating persons differently.

Every Sheriff in California to ensure equal access to a CCW, must possess, interpret and apply a similar set of standards when determining the required good cause in part because the California Concealed Weapons Permit is a STATEWIDE PERMIT TO CARRY LOADED AND CONCEALED, and NOT a local county permit.


Most of the facts and circumstances of this issue can be found in the link included in this posting.

A hearing is scheduled in Federal District Court in San Diego on Monday December 21, 2009 at 10:30am.