Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: My current CPRA requests

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    My current CPRA requests

    I sent out four CPRA requests earlier this month (via certified mail with return receipt around July 10th). It's been over 10 business days, I've only received one fulfillment of my requests thus far. Here are my requests.

    I. San Francisco Police Department
    To Whom It May Concern:

    I hereby request the following information which the California Public Records Act (CA GC 6251) entitles me to:

    1. A list of agencies and/or persons that have been granted the written consent of the Police Chief to act as peace officers under CA PC 830.8(b), and the dates of issue.
    2. The number of requests for information regarding licenses to carry pistols and revolvers the Police Department has received per year in the past five years.
    3. The number of requests for information regarding licenses to carry pistols and revolvers the Police Department has replied to per year in the past five years.
    4. The number of applications for licenses to carry pistols and revolvers the Police Department has received per year in the past five years.
    5. The number of denied applications for licenses to carry pistols and revolvers the Police Department has received per year in the past five years.
    6. The number of approved applications for licenses to carry pistols and revolvers the Police Department has received per year in the past five years.
    7. The written policy summarizing the provisions of CA PC 12050, subdivision (a), paragraph (1), subparagraphs (A) and (B) which CA PC 12050.2 requires the Police Department to make available.

    If the Police Department wishes to charge any type of fee for retrieval or for the presenting of this information, then I respectfully request for a time and place to be made available for me to inspect the above information, at which time I will decide if any copies will be need to be made.


    II. San Francisco Unified School District

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I hereby request the following information which the California Public Records Act (CA GC 6251) entitles me to:

    1. The email retention policy of the San Francisco Unified School District.
    2. The email server software and version that is used by the San Francisco Unified School District.

    If the SFUSD wishes to charge any type of fee for retrieval or for the presenting of this information, then I respectfully request for a time and place to be made available for me to inspect the above information, at which time I will decide if any copies will be need to be made.


    III. U.S. Park Police of the Presidio
    To Whom It May Concern:

    I hereby request the following information which the California Public Records Act (CA GC 6251) as well as the federal Freedom of Information Act entitles me to:

    1. A copy of the written consent from the San Francisco Police Chief which grant Presidio park police officers the ability to act as peace officers under CA PC 830.8(b), and the date of issue.
    2. A copy of the written consent from the San Francisco Sheriff which grant Presidio park police officers the ability to act as peace officers under CA PC 830.8(b), and the date of issue.
    3. Any memos, emails, reports, videos, or audio recordings related to “open carry”.
    4. Any memos, emails, reports, videos, or audio recordings related to the trash pickup event held by a group of people who were openly carrying firearms on February 27, 2010.
    5. The email retention policy of the Presidio branch of the U.S. Park Police.
    6. The email server software and version that is used by the Presidio branch of the U.S. Park Police.

    If the U.S. Park Police wishes to charge any type of fee for retrieval or for the presenting of this information, then I respectfully request for a time and place to be made available for me to inspect the above information, at which time I will decide if any copies will be need to be made.


    IV. San Francisco Sheriff Department
    To Whom It May Concern:

    I hereby request the following information which the California Public Records Act (CA GC 6251) entitles me to:

    1. A list of agencies and/or persons that have been granted written consent of the Sheriff to act as peace officers under CA PC 830.8(b), and the dates of issue.
    2. The number of requests for information regarding licenses to carry pistols and revolvers the Sheriff has received per year in the past five years.
    3. The number of requests for information regarding licenses to carry pistols and revolvers the Sheriff has replied to per year in the past five years.
    4. The number of applications for licenses to carry pistols and revolvers the Sheriff has received per year in the past five years.
    5. The number of denied applications for licenses to carry pistols and revolvers the Sheriff has received per year in the past five years.
    6. The number of approved applications for licenses to carry pistols and revolvers the Sheriff has received per year in the past five years.
    7. The written policy summarizing the provisions of CA PC 12050, subdivision (a), paragraph (1), subparagraphs (A) and (B) which CA PC 12050.2 requires the Sheriff to make available.

    If the Sheriff Department wishes to charge any type of fee for retrieval or for the presenting of this information, then I respectfully request for a time and place to be made available for me to inspect the above information, at which time I will decide if any copies will be need to be made.

    ---------

    I'm simultaneously investigating numerous things. I'm looking into how hard it really is to obtain a CCW in San Francisco. I hear lots of people saying that it's impossible, but I've never heard of anybody trying to get one. I figured filing a CPRA would be an easy way to find out the answer. Both the SFPD and SFSD requests seek to gain information on CCWs, but they are also cross-referencing the Park Police 12031(e) check that occurred earlier this year at the Presidio cleanup event.

    The Park Police CPRA/FOIA seeks to determine if the Park Police acted in a legal manner when they performed 12031(e) checks earlier this year. Since I couldn't trust that they'd willingly incriminate themselves of a crime, I also asked the two possible issuing agencies about who they have given peace officer status to.

    The SFUSD is a followup to my whole 626.9 exemption request I asked for earlier this year. My CPRA from earlier this year sought information on the district's stance on gun free school zones. I was given absolutely no records to a rather broad request. I find that hard to believe, so I will now follow up on if they were lying or not.

    As mentioned above, I have received only one response, which was from the SF Sheriff Department. Here are their summarized answers to my requests.

    1. The number and list of agencies which may exercise authority under PC 830.8(s) should be obtained from the San Francisco Police Department's Chief of Police. The Sheriff has not issued written consent to such Federal employees.

    2. We have no records of "requests for information" regarding CCWs.

    3-6. The enclosed documents reflect all records on CCWs, only one valid license is current.

    7. The Sheriff is formulating a written policy but none exist as of this date.

    Signed,
    James Harrigan (this is relevant)

    ----

    Several interesting bits of information here. One being the portion I bolded above, "The Sheriff has not issued written consent to such Federal employees." What is he talking about? I didn't mention federal employees anywhere in my request. This is either a weird coincidence or they know exactly why I am asking for this information.

    Two, they have no records of "requests for information." This is mildly interesting for two reasons. The first is because I asked for CCW information from the Sheriff back in May. I received no response. The second is because nobody is asking for information on CCWs from the Sheriff. Or both of those things are wrong and they simply don't keep track of who requests information.

    Three, the Sheriff hasn't formulated a policy on issuing CCWs despite the fact that the law says all issuing agencies must have a written policy within three months of 12050 going into effect. I'm not sure how old 12050 is, but it is definitely older than three months. Therefore the Sheriff is violating CA PC 12050.2.

    Four, the person who fulfilled my request, James Harrigan, the legal counsel to the Sheriff, is the only person who currently has a valid CCW issued by the Sheriff of San Francisco. It was issued in October of 2008. His good cause reads, "Threat of possible physical violence exists in person of an armed deputy facing termination who has exhibited psychological instability and focuses on applicant. This person has stated [REDACTED]."

    I'll be contacting the other agencies shortly to inquire about my requests and inform them that they are beyond the ten day period to respond. If they still fail to respond I'll be contacting the Department of Justice (or is there a better agency?).

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    this right here is telling!

    His good cause reads, "Threat of possible physical violence exists in person of an armed deputy facing termination who has exhibited psychological instability and focuses on applicant.

    keep on keepin on.
    your work, and ed pruetta will drive this crap to the ground!

    california will have to become "shall issue" soon!

    i applaud your efforts and DEMAND that you keep on it!
    i salute you.......
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Got a reply from SFPD today, it is a single letter which reads:

    The San Francisco Police Department is in receipt of your public records request wherein you seek 7 items of information.

    After a thorough and diligent search, I have been advised by Lt. Quema of the Special Investigations Unit that we do not have responsive documents or answers available to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. With regards to request #6; 2 permits have been issued, one to General Robert Menist and one to Judge Richard Kramer.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.

    ----

    Needless to say, this is the sparsest response I could have expected. I'll be contacting them again to get them to properly answer my request.

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Called the three places who have failed to respond to my CPRA/FOIA requests. Spoke to SFUSD, left a message at the park police and the police department.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Update to this saga:

    Called everybody last week. SFUSD was working on their response and it should be expected in a week or so. Left messages everywhere else.

    Called everybody again today. Spoke to Loris(?) at the Presidio Park Police records department who asked me to send my request to the major in charge of the department and CC his secretary, which I promptly did.

    Spoke to Maureen Conefrey at SFPD's legal department who said a few interesting things. She said that no written permission for granting of peace officer status were on file, and they would have things like that on file. She also said the police department had no written policy for issuing CCWs, which obviously violates 12050.2. She said a Lt. Silverman had been assigned a project with SID (special investigations department) to go through the "drawer full of denials" and come up with a policy. She didn't come out and say they were going to figure out what their policy is based on past denials, but it sort of sounds that way. She also said that I should re-file my CPRA request in two weeks and address it to Lt. Silverman.

    The most interesting bit of information here is that now both the Sheriff department and the SFPD have denied that they have ever issued written permission for anybody to act as a peace officer. This means that the 12031(e) checks performed on Baker Beach during the February beach cleanup meet were unlawful. At this point I await the response of the Park Police to see what they can produce in terms of the written permission slip. The officers which performed the 12031(e) checks assured everybody that their department had the permission slip, let's see if they can produce it since both possible issuing agencies deny having ever written one.

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    It occurred to me that if the park police didn't have written permission that they may be guilty of impersonating a peace officer.

    538d. (a) Any person other than one who by law is given the
    authority of a peace officer, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses
    the authorized uniform, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate,
    card, or writing, of a peace officer, with the intent of
    fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently
    inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a
    misdemeanor.
    (b) (1) Any person, other than the one who by law is given the
    authority of a peace officer, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses
    the badge of a peace officer with the intent of fraudulently
    impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently inducing the belief
    that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor
    punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year,
    by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both
    that imprisonment and fine.
    (2) Any person who willfully wears or uses any badge that falsely
    purports to be authorized for the use of one who by law is given the
    authority of a peace officer, or which so resembles the authorized
    badge of a peace officer as would deceive any ordinary reasonable
    person into believing that it is authorized for the use of one who by
    law is given the authority of a peace officer, for the purpose of
    fraudulently impersonating a peace officer, or of fraudulently
    inducing the belief that he or she is a peace officer, is guilty of a
    misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to
    exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars
    ($2,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
    Good times. I wonder if the DA will pick up the case if all the evidence is handed to her in a nice neat package.
    Last edited by bigtoe416; 08-12-2010 at 05:45 PM.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Just received this email from the Major of the Presidio:

    I have forward your request to the Department of Interior, Field Solicitors
    Office.

    Thank you,

    Jason Wu, Major
    Commander, SFFO
    United States Park Police

    ----

    Hopefully that isn't some super generic office which has nothing to do with the Presidio. I guess we shall see.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Mike Hunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    293
    Well done dude, well done!! Your vigilance on this case is inspiring!
    ETA: Field Solicitors?? Sounds like maybe their legal dept? Just a thought.
    Last edited by Mike Hunt; 08-12-2010 at 11:17 PM.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Received a second response from the SF Sheriff regarding CCWs:

    I respond to your follow up email as follows:

    1. Applications received during the past five (5) years are two (2).
    2. The number of denied Carry a Concealed Weapon Permit (CCW) applications in the past five (5) years is zero (0).
    3. Approved CCWs in timeframe is two (2)
    4. Policy applicable to Penal Code 1250 [sic] sections is likely within the next ninety (90) days. It is just not a front burner issue as we do not get applications other than retired federal officers, and of course, mine.

    Very Truly Yours,
    James F. Harrigan
    Legal Counsel to the Sheriff

    ------

    Zero denials! So much for all the whisperings about how nobody gets a permit in SF. I'm beginning to wonder how much of that is self-perpetuating gossip and how much of that is real. I'm personally leaning more toward the real side though, despite evidence to the contrary. Call me a pessimist.

    In SFUSD news, I called them yesterday about my unfulfilled CPRA request. The lady who answered clearly knew who I was or knew what I was talking about as she informed me that the legal department had forwarded my request to the appropriate department and she believed they sent out a response on Friday. I haven't received anything. She said, "I don't know what to tell you. You'll just have to wait."

  10. #10
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Thanks for the update BT.

    It would be interesting to see the results of a PRAR for all applications.

    I also find it interesting that we have at least some small information available to crosscheck them.

    The official CA DoJ Statistics by County through 2007 are here:
    http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/...uances2007.pdf

    According to that for SF County; 6 licenses had been issued as of 2007 which is within your 5 year period

    The numbers for 2005 to 2007 are 10, 8, & 6. So if there are no denied renewals in that period, 2 were lost each year to attrition.

    Noone seems to know if these are ALL licenses or only non-LEO non-Judge licenses...

    So, with the information you have from the Sherrif's Office, SFPD should respond with at least 4 approvals at a minimum.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    I don't think the presidio park police have to respond to a PRA. If they are US, you have to do a FOIA instead

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
    I don't think the presidio park police have to respond to a PRA. If they are US, you have to do a FOIA instead
    I cited both CPRA and FOIA in my letter. Does submitting a FOIA request require that I do something materially different from a CPRA?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I cited both CPRA and FOIA in my letter. Does submitting a FOIA request require that I do something materially different from a CPRA?
    It kinda depends on what was put in the request.

    Here's a link to a FOIA Generator:

    http://www.rcfp.org/foialetter/index.php

    The feds are nothing if not total, head to toe bureaucrats. The closer you get to speaking their lingo, the faster you will get a response close to what you had envisioned

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    Received a second response from the SF Sheriff regarding CCWs:...

    ...2. The number of denied Carry a Concealed Weapon Permit (CCW) applications in the past five (5) years is zero (0).

    Zero denials! So much for all the whisperings about how nobody gets a permit in SF. I'm beginning to wonder how much of that is self-perpetuating gossip and how much of that is real. I'm personally leaning more toward the real side though, despite evidence to the contrary. Call me a pessimist....
    Hello sir,

    I am curious as to whether or not consideration was taken that there may be something severely limiting about the applicant process that prevents said applications from reaching the Sheriff for approval or denial? It would indeed reflect properly that the Sheriff had not even seen a request were the criteria impossible, or extremely difficult to meet.

    Consider the case of Mr. Peruta, and the lengths at which he needed to go to simply get the CCW processed and merely TO the Sheriff.

    Just felt that needed to be thrown out there.
    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 08-18-2010 at 10:59 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  15. #15
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
    Here's a link to a FOIA Generator:

    http://www.rcfp.org/foialetter/index.php
    That is awesome! Bookmarked. Also, all my request letters were in the original post of this thread. Thanks for the link.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Unbelievable backpeddling by government entities

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    That is awesome! Bookmarked. Also, all my request letters were in the original post of this thread. Thanks for the link.
    Thanks Big Toe for the update please keep on keeping on we need to do that in SD county also
    "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

    - General George S. Patton, Jr.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Forgot to mention that I sent in another request to the police department a few weeks ago. They recently asked for a time extension. That letter was a nearly identical copy addressed specifically to Lt. Silverman.

    I also still haven't heard from the Park Police. I'll be mailing this letter tomorrow:

    FOIA Officer, Administrative Program Center
    National Park Service
    1201 Eye Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20005

    FOIA REQUEST
    Fee waiver requested

    Dear FOIA Officer:

    Pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request access to and copies of 1. A copy of the written consent from the San Francisco Police Chief which grant U.S. Park Police of the Presidio of San Francisco the ability to act as peace officers under CA PC 830.8(b), and the date of issue.
    2. A copy of the written consent from the San Francisco Sheriff which grant U.S. Park Police of the Presidio of San Francisco the ability to act as peace officers under CA PC 830.8(b), and the date of issue.
    3. Any memos, emails, reports, videos, or audio recordings related to “open carry” that the U.S. Park Police of the Presidio of San Francisco may have from the year 2010.
    4. Any memos, emails, reports, videos, or audio recordings related to the trash pickup event held by a group of people who were openly carrying firearms on February 27, 2010.
    5. The email retention policy of the Presidio branch of the U.S. Park Police.
    6. The email server software and version that is used by the Presidio branch of the U.S. Park Police.

    I would like to receive the information in electronic format.

    Please waive any applicable fees. Release of the information is in the public interest because it will contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations and activities. This information will be presented to the public in a manner which may facilitate understanding of the events which took place on Baker Beach, The Presidio of San Francisco on February 27, 2010. At the present time there is evidence which suggests that the actions of U.S. Park Police officers violated California state law and there is significant interest in determining the lawfulness of said officers activities.

    If this waiver is denied, then I am willing to pay up to $50 for being able to obtain this information.

    If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I will also expect you to release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. I, of course, reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees.

    I look forward to your reply within 20 business days, as the statute requires.

    Thank you for your assistance.

  18. #18
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    2. The number of denied Carry a Concealed Weapon Permit (CCW) applications in the past five (5) years is zero (0).
    I'm sure others have considered this, but here in San Diego we probably have a very low number of denied applications, but the reason for that is many applicants are intimidated into withdrawing their application. They're told that there's no way it will get approved and that the interviewer will do them a favor and let them withdraw the application to spare them from having a denial. This happens all the time. I've known of people who ignored the intimidating and insisted on submitting it anyway and been approved. But bottom line is they actively try to discourage applicants and intimidate them into withdrawing the application. The subsequent "low number of denials" is thus a deception that makes them look better and gives support to politicians who tout these figures.

    If the San Diego Sheriff uses these tactics, I can only imagine they do this in the Bay Area.

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Received a big packet from SFPD today. Interesting bits of information include:

    1. In past five years, only 3 CCW applications have been approved.
    2. One of these applications is for a Judge who left the "reason for ccw" page completely blank.
    3. There have been 48 denials for CCWs by SFPD, not sure what the time frame is for that, she just states that there are 48 denials in the CCW drawer.

    She said if I wanted to see the denials I can pay to get copies of them.
    Last edited by bigtoe416; 09-22-2010 at 05:44 PM. Reason: grammar

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Anaheim
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    Received a big packet from SFPD today. Interesting bits of information include:

    1. In past five years, only 3 CCW applications have been approved.
    2. One of these applications is for a Judge who left the "reason for ccw" page completely blank.
    3. There have been 48 denials for CCWs by SFPD, not sure what the time frame is for that, she just states that there are 48 denials in the CCW drawer.

    She said if I wanted to see the denials I pay to get copies of them.

    hmm... so I'm guessing my application may not pass haha. Does each denial have a reason why they are denied?

  21. #21
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanmp1986 View Post
    hmm... so I'm guessing my application may not pass haha. Does each denial have a reason why they are denied?
    I'm not sure. I've only seen approved applications thus far.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by RockerFor2A View Post
    I'm sure others have considered this, but here in San Diego we probably have a very low number of denied applications, but the reason for that is many applicants are intimidated into withdrawing their application. They're told that there's no way it will get approved and that the interviewer will do them a favor and let them withdraw the application to spare them from having a denial. This happens all the time. I've known of people who ignored the intimidating and insisted on submitting it anyway and been approved. But bottom line is they actively try to discourage applicants and intimidate them into withdrawing the application. The subsequent "low number of denials" is thus a deception that makes them look better and gives support to politicians who tout these figures.

    If the San Diego Sheriff uses these tactics, I can only imagine they do this in the Bay Area.
    I can be wrong but look at it this way. If the interviewer intimidates applicants into withdrawing their application, the SDS office can rationalize that there are few applicants who really wants a CCW as evidenced by a relatively small number of applicants who pressed on with their CCW applications coupled with a large number of withdrawals of applicants, and that there are few rejections.

    Anybody can use the low numbers as argument for keeping the status quo on CA CCW laws - "people are not really interested with CCWs so why bother".

    0.02

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    If and when Calif goes shall issue, there will be lines waiting for the CCW class, and then lines waiting to apply for the CCW.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  24. #24
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    0? really?

    Quote Originally Posted by RockerFor2A View Post
    I'm sure others have considered this, but here in San Diego we probably have a very low number of denied applications, but the reason for that is many applicants are intimidated into withdrawing their application. They're told that there's no way it will get approved and that the interviewer will do them a favor and let them withdraw the application to spare them from having a denial. This happens all the time. I've known of people who ignored the intimidating and insisted on submitting it anyway and been approved. But bottom line is they actively try to discourage applicants and intimidate them into withdrawing the application. The subsequent "low number of denials" is thus a deception that makes them look better and gives support to politicians who tout these figures.

    If the San Diego Sheriff uses these tactics, I can only imagine they do this in the Bay Area.
    with that statistic, why not get in there right now and apply?
    it almost sound like they dont deny you, they just talk you out of applying!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  25. #25
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    If and when Calif goes shall issue, there will be lines waiting for the CCW class, and then lines waiting to apply for the CCW.
    Amen to that. Business will be booming. I am awaiting my Florida non-resident permit at the moment.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •