• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

My current CPRA requests

ryanmp1986

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Anaheim
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?
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
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
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
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.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
0? really?

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!
 

RockerFor2A

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Lemon Grove, CA
I'd apply in California, but I'm sure I *would* get rejected as I don't have the sort of "good cause" that is needed. From what I've heard you need to either have some sort of job-related need (carrying large amounts of cash, jewels, etc.) or have some sort of legitimate fear for your life (death threats, etc.) that is backed up with supporting documentation like police reports, etc. Simply asserting the right to personal protection is a non starter. That may change depending on the outcome of Mr. Peruta's (?) lawsuit. I made a joke to a friend that I ought to burn a Koran in order to get a fatwa issued for my death by an Imam and maybe THAT could be my "good cause." :)

P.S. If you're Muslim, relax-- that was a joke. Please don't kill me. However, if you wouldn't mind threatening me, you'd be helping me get a permit. :)
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Here is a copy of the latest CCW applications that I received from SFPD. The important part here is the fact that their policy states that, "No office or employment classification in itself will constitute good cause for issuance or denial of a license." Then, a few pages down we have John Conway, Judge of the Superior Court who was issued a license with an entirely blank page which states his reason for having one.

What this indicates to me is that anybody who wants a CCW and resides in San Francisco can submit an application and if they get denied then file a lawsuit demanding that equal protection be applied for the issuance of the license.

I'm also sending in a follow-up to SFPD asking for copies of the page 11 & 13 for all denials they have on record.
 
Last edited:

EXTREMEOPS1

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
248
Location
Escondido CA
Intimidation in getting the applicant to withdrawing the application ????

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.
What would be the outcome of a denial be on the applicant ...if later they applied again? I'm guessing a further denial as you already have one in the system? Intimidation is used by thugs and bullies and that can be stopped in its tracks ...
 

RockerFor2A

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Lemon Grove, CA
What would be the outcome of a denial be on the applicant ...if later they applied again? I'm guessing a further denial as you already have one in the system? Intimidation is used by thugs and bullies and that can be stopped in its tracks ...

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to. The implication has seemed to be that a previous denial on your record could somehow be prejudicial. If it isn't then there'd be nothing to lose but the fee.

Check for my FL CCW fee ($117) cleared yesterday though. It's good in just under 30 states.
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
Denials based on a licensing authority's current level of discretion are not bearing on future applications.

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to. The implication has seemed to be that a previous denial on your record could somehow be prejudicial.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Received a huge packet of info from my first FOIA request today. Inside was probably 100 pages of various scattered information on email retention policy. They also indicated that they use Lotus Notes version 6 for email. The best part was a CD with 44 high quality pictures that the undercover park police officer took. Still no evidence of any written consent from the Sheriff or the Police Chief granting peace officer status to the park police officers. This was an "interim response" to my request though.

I'll upload the pics somewhere and link to them since each one is four megs.

ETA: I'm gonna upload some of them since flickr has a ~80 meg limit per month on photo uploads. A lot of them are of a group standing around with Walter video recording the undercover park police officer taking pictures.

Here's the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/73419559@N00/sets/72157625095084306/
 
Last edited:

Wc

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
329
Location
, ,
What laws? said the local law enforcement.

Still no evidence of any written consent from the Sheriff or the Police Chief granting peace officer status to the park police officers. This was an "interim response" to my request though.

Maybe they don't have it because they didn't know about the law before them.

Thanks for updated.
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
When our fundamental right to self-defense - yes, even outside one's home - is acknowledged (soon), a licensing authority will have no basis for denial but for those provisions in state and federal law which would preclude right to arms.

Assumption: You have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Are you a prohibited person at this time? See below.

If no, go on (receive CCW permit).

If yes, end.

CALIFORNIA PROHIBITING CATEGORIES FOR A CCW LICENSE
As of January, 1999

• Persons convicted of a felony, or any offense enumerated in section 12021.1 of the Penal Code (PC).
• Persons addicted to the use of narcotics.
• Persons denied firearm possession as a condition of probation pursuant to PC section 12021(d).
• Persons convicted of a specified misdemeanor pursuant to PC section 12021(c)(1) are prohibited from purchasing
or possessing firearms for 10 years (see Attachment 2).
• Juveniles adjudged wards of the juvenile court because they committed a 707(b) Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) offense, an offense described in PC section 1203.073(b) or any offense enumerated in PC section 12021 (c)(1) are prohibited until they reach age 30.
• Persons who are subject to a protective order as defined in section 6218 of the Family Code, or a temporary
restraining order or injunction issued pursuant to sections 527.6 or 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Persons found by a court to be a danger to others because of mental illness.
• Persons found by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial.
• Persons found by a court to be not guilty by reason of insanity.
• Persons adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender.
• Persons placed on a conservatorship because they are gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism
• Persons who communicate a threat to a licensed psychotherapist, against a reasonably identifiable victim, and the
psychotherapist reports to law enforcement pursuant to WIC section 8100(b), are prohibited from purchasing or
possessing a firearm for 6 months.
• Persons in a mental health facility certified pursuant to WIC sections 5250, 5260, and 5270.15 are prohibited from
possessing or purchasing or attempting to purchase firearms for 5 years.
• Persons who are voluntary patients in a mental facility who are determined to be a danger to self or others are
prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm between admission and discharge.
• Persons under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

CALIFORNIA PROHIBITING MISDEMEANORS
As of January, 1999

Pursuant to Penal Code (PC) section 12021(c)(1), any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor violation
for any of the following offenses is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under his or her custody or
control any firearms within 10 years of the conviction:
• Threatening public officers, employees and school officials (PC section 71).
• Threatening certain public officials, appointees, judges, staff or their families with the intent and apparent ability
to carry out the threat (PC section 76).
• Possessing a deadly weapon with the intent to intimidate a witness (PC section 136.5).
• Threatening witnesses, victims, or informants (PC section 140).
• Attempting to remove or take a firearm from the person or immediate presence of a public or peace officer
(PC section 148(d)).
• Unauthorized possession of a weapon in a courtroom, courthouse or court building, or at a public meeting
(PC section 171(b)).
• Bringing into or possessing a loaded firearm within the state capitol, legislative offices, etc. (PC section 171c).
• Taking into or possessing loaded firearms within the Governor’s Mansion or residence of other constitutional
officers, etc. (PC section 171(d)).
• Supplying, selling or giving possession of a firearm to a person for participation in criminal street gangs
(PC section 186.28).
• Assault (PC sections 240, 241)
• Battery (PC sections 242, 243).
• Assault with a stun gun or Taber weapon (PC section 244.5)
• Assault with deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury (PC section 245).
• Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument, by any means likely to produce great bodily injury or with a stun
gun or Taber on a school employee engaged in performance of duties (PC section 245.5).
• Shooting at an inhabited or occupied dwelling house, building, vehicle, aircraft, horsecart or camper
(PC section 246).
• Discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (PC section 246.3)
• Shooting at an unoccupied aircraft, motor vehicle, or uninhabited building or dwelling house (PC section 247)
• Inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or significant other (PC section 273.5)
• Willfully violating a domestic protective order (PC section 273.6).
• Drawing, exhibiting, or using any deadly weapon other than a firearm (PC sections 417(a)(1), 417(a)(2)).
• Brandishing a firearm in presence of a peace officer (PC section 417.1 – repealed by stats. 1998).
• Drawing or exhibiting, selling, manufacturing, or distributing firearm replicas or imitations (PC section 417.2).
• Inflicting serious bodily injury as a result of brandishing (PC section 417.6).
• Bringing into or possessing firearms upon or within public schools and grounds (PC section 626.9).
• Stalking (PC section 646.9).
• Armed criminal action (PC section 12023).
• Possessing a deadly weapon with intent to commit an assault (PC section 12024).
• Driver or any vehicle who knowingly permits another person to discharge a firearm from the vehicle or any
person who will fully and maliciously discharges a firearm from a motor vehicle (PC sections 12034(b),
12034(d)).
• Criminal possession of a firearm (PC section 12040).
• Firearms dealer who sells or transfers or gives possession of any firearm to a minor or a handgun to a person
under the age of 21 (PC section 12072(b)).
• Various violations involving sales and transfers of firearms (PC section 12072(g)(3)).
• Person or corporation who sells any concealable firearm to any minor (PC section 12100(a) – repealed by
stats. 1994).
• Unauthorized possession/transportation of a machine gun (PC section 12220).
• Possession of ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor (PC section 12320).
• Carrying a concealed or loaded firearm or other deadly weapon or wearing a peace officer uniform, while
picketing (PC section 12590).
• Bringing firearm related contraband into juvenile hall (WIC section 871.5).
• Bringing firearm related contraband into a youth authority institution (WIC section 1001.5).
• Purchase, possession, or receipt of a firearm or deadly weapon by a person receiving in-patient treatment for a
mental disorder, or by a person who has communicated to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical
violence against an identifiable victim (WIC section 8100).
• Providing a firearm or deadly weapon to a person described in WIC sections 8100 or 8103 (WIC section 8101).
• Purchase, possession, or receipt of a firearm or deadly weapon by a person who has been adjudicated to be a
mentally disordered sex offender or found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of
insanity, and individuals placed under a conservatorship (WIC section 8103).

FEDERAL PROHIBITING CATEGORIES FOR POSSESSING FIREARMS
Gun Control Act of 1968, Title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44
As of January, 1999

Pursuant to Section 922, any person listed below is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving
any firearm, who:
• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
• Is a fugitive from justice.
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
• Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship.
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or
child of such intimate partner.
• Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
• Has an out-of-state prohibitive criminal history.
• Has a prior denial on a previous National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) inquiry.

Cite please.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Received quite a few copies of pages 11 and 13 of denied CCW applications from the SFPD today. Among the denied individuals are security guards, an ex-district attorney, several business owners, an apartment complex manager who was threatened by a recent prison parolee, a person who left their good cause statement completely blank, and (at the time of applying) a presiding Judge in the First District Court of Appeals.

Good stuff, I'll scan them in next week.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Here are the scanned documents. The cover letter stated, "Please be advised that many of the CCW applications that were denied had insufficient information or in some cases, no application was submitted. For those denials, there are no responsive documents."

http://filevo.com/kuj0erh06xay.html
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Got my final response from park police today. The good news is that the park police apparently did not violate the law and did indeed have permission from Police Chief Heather Fong from 2006.

I've uploaded the memos and emails they sent me. It's a big PDF file which you can find here: http://filevo.com/9a3geex3gl92.html
The most interesting bit would have been the after-action report from Officer Roth, but it was redacted. The reason for the redaction is pretty lame, so I will probably appeal that part of the FOIA.

I've removed the few pages that contained my initial request to attempt to make my cell phone number slightly less well known to the internet.

I also received the audio of radio traffic from the Baker Beach event. It's extremely uneventful, but I've digitized it (came in audio cassette form...wooo!) and will upload it tomorrow probably. I'll scan the peace officer permission slip sometime next week.

Overall the feds are VERY thorough when it comes to FOIA requests. They make SFUSD look like total fools. I'm impressed about the response I received, although I'm also dismayed regarding the redaction of certain things.
 
Top