Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Easty County UOC

  1. #1
    Regular Member Born2Lose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    PRK, East County San Diego
    Posts
    262

    Easty County UOC

    New to this board but not to guns.
    I've been reading up on all the pamphlets, encounters, suggestions, warnings, etc on the CA forum.
    Now that i'm getting a little older and have a wife and a daughter firearms have gone from a hobby to a necessity.
    I think i was putting way to much hope in the Peruta case and now that it is (pretty much) over i've decided that UOC is the only viable option.
    I seriously considered CC'ing anyway but decided that it's stupid to do as the whole point of UOC is to protect myself and my family which is pretty hard to do behind bars.
    Have any of you San Diego folks made up a school zone map? Are there any East County locations that you would be "safe" for a first time UOC outing? (ie out of school zone danger and not ANTI OC)
    When is the next outing?

    Thanks for your help and input guys.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Lose View Post
    New to this board but not to guns.
    I've been reading up on all the pamphlets, encounters, suggestions, warnings, etc on the CA forum.
    Now that i'm getting a little older and have a wife and a daughter firearms have gone from a hobby to a necessity.
    I think i was putting way to much hope in the Peruta case and now that it is (pretty much) over i've decided that UOC is the only viable option.
    I seriously considered CC'ing anyway but decided that it's stupid to do as the whole point of UOC is to protect myself and my family which is pretty hard to do behind bars.
    Have any of you San Diego folks made up a school zone map? Are there any East County locations that you would be "safe" for a first time UOC outing? (ie out of school zone danger and not ANTI OC)
    When is the next outing?

    Thanks for your help and input guys.
    I think the best way I did it was to Google the schools in your area, your town.
    Then make your own map, and then commit them to memory a mental one.
    And learn on your map what is 1000 feet from the closest property line, then avoid it !
    Any safe areas, would be a good distance from any schools. K-12 schools.
    Hope this helps you. I used to live in 2 school zones, where I was. I couldn't UOC out my front door or back yard.

    Robin47

  3. #3
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Peruta is not "over"; it's now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

    Before you UOC, we suggest you apply to the Sheriff for your carry license by certified mail, return receipt requested (or by courier like UPS/GSO/Fedex, signature required, for proof of delivery). Instructions are below; the California standard application is linked in the instructions.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
    Though CGF officially feels that it is still not the best strategic/political choice to UOC in urban California, while LOCing where allowed in California is just fine, we would like to add one very important recommendation.

    If you are still going to UOC in urban California we strongly advise you to apply for a PC 12050 carry license. However, as the Carry Sunshine Initiative is just getting underway, many counties have asinine restrictions. As such we recommend a specific set of steps in your application.

    1. Send the following cover letter where you correctly fill out the XXX's and chose the tracked shipping method of your choice:

    XXXday, December XX, 2010


    Sheriff XXXX XXXX
    XXXXX County Sheriff's Office
    XXX Main St.
    XXXXXX, CA 9XXXX

    VIA CERTIFIED US MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED/FEDEX/UPS

    Re: Application for Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW)


    Dear Sheriff XXXXX,

    As you know, the State of California requires persons who wish to carry functional handguns to be licensed in accordance with Cal. Penal Code § 12050, et. seq. As such, I wish to acquire a firearm carry license (“CCW”) in order to exercise my fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense . Please find enclosed my completed “STANDARD APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON (CCW)”, form BCIA 4012 (6/99), for a standard 2-year “civilian” CCW license. I am applying to your Sheriff's Office because I am a resident of XXXXXX County, California.

    The 1976 Court of Appeals decision of Salute v. Pitchess held that “[w]hile a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion”. The decision went on to declare that “[i]t is the duty of the sheriff to make such an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application under section 12050”.

    In light of the above, I respectfully request that you accept my completed application, collect my fingerprints, conduct an investigation, and make your determination after you receive the Department of Justice background check report as described in Cal. Penal Code § 12052.

    I have enclosed with this letter and my completed application a check made out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office in the amount of $20.00 for the maximum initial local fee in a good faith effort to begin the application process. At the time of fingerprinting I will provide another check for the $95.00 DOJ PC § 12052 background check fee and your standard local Livescan fingerprint fee. Upon issuance I will pay the balance of the allowed local fees.

    If you have any questions, or if any part of the application is incomplete or incorrectly completed, please contact me at (XXX) XXX-XXXX immediately. I look forward to hearing from you or your CCW application coordinator and am eager to complete the balance of the process and receive your determination within 90 days from your receipt of my enclosed application.

    I hereby certify under penalties of perjury and Penal Code section 12051(b) and (c), that the answers I have given on the enclosed CCW application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.


    Signed ________________________________ Date ______________
    Mr(s). XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
    123 Main St.
    XXXX, CA 9XXXX
    (XXX) XXX-XXXX
    XXXXXXX@XXX.com
    2. Fill out the "Fillable DOJ CCW Application" as instructed in the application itself.

    3. Make a copy or a scan of the entire package before sending.

    4. Send the cover letter, the filled out CCW Application, and a $20 check or money order made out your county sheriff via certified mail, return receipt requested or Fedex/UPS with tracking to your county sheriff.

    5. Save the tracking information or return receipt.

    If you are to be denied, you now have proof that you attempted to comply with the State requirements to carry but were rebuffed by the licensing authority (or you might just get a permit...). However, if you later have an interaction with law enforcement that is sub-par, the actual fact of your application and denial will make that interaction far more valuable to the fight for gun rights.

    CGF remains unwilling to defend UOC cases generally. However, we will be far more amenable to a UOC case where the UOCer attempted to comply with PC § 12050 and has proof via a return receipt of tracking information, as it significantly narrows the counter arguments that a law enforcement agency can make.

    -Gene
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  4. #4
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
    we suggest you apply to the Sheriff for your carry license ...
    We also suggest that if you don't live in an area with a sheriff that is virtually shall-issue on CCW that you respect your 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights and not waste your time or money with an invasive, and arguably illegal, CCW application permit and process. Especially since it will surely result in you being denied, which you will then have to report in future CCW applications in other states you may reside in, which may hurt you getting a CCW later on.

  5. #5
    Regular Member leoffensive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    309
    i live down in santee. i usually uoc when i visit my friends in lakeside. theres places in EC you just gotta make sure you know your school zones

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    We also suggest that if you don't live in an area with a sheriff that is virtually shall-issue on CCW that you respect your 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights and not waste your time or money with an invasive, and arguably illegal, CCW application permit and process. Especially since it will surely result in you being denied, which you will then have to report in future CCW applications in other states you may reside in, which may hurt you getting a CCW later on.
    You forgot the 9th...
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Harley, would you mind making an attempt at truly useful discourse?

    I'd prefer to be able to defend innocent people, as we have, and your propensity toward telling others to ignore good advice because of your disdain for the reality in which we live is going to hurt people.

    Feel free to ignore us, but please don't take your dislike of our approach out on people who are seeking information in an honest attempt to mitigate risk.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  8. #8
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
    Brandon, would you mind making an attempt at truly useful discourse?

    I'd prefer to be able to defend innocent people, as we have, and your propensity toward telling others to ignore good advice because of your disdain for the reality in which we live is going to hurt people.

    Feel free to ignore us, but please don't take your dislike of our approach out on people who are seeking information in an honest attempt to mitigate risk.
    Its almost as if some people believe they are the only ones with legitimate views on how constitutionally protected rights should be treated and what respect they should be given.

    I don't see anything wrong with posting a constructive opinion, even if it goes against what some people believe is the correct approach. That is the purpose of online forums, for constructive discourse of varying opinions.

    Just because some people are associated with a particular group or foundation does not make their ideas any more valid than others. It is a shame you and other people on calguns are so quick to shoot down those with alternative ideas to restore gun rights in CA. Maybe if you opened your minds a bit and allowed more constructive discourse, CA would not be in such a mess. This kind of idea belittling and censorship is no better than the behavior of the likes of the Bradys.

    You and yours are welcome to burn your money asking for government permission slips and telling others they should do the same. I'll keep educating the public about how to exercise and protect their constitutional rights.

    Cheers!

  9. #9
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    This has nothing to do with "opinions" or the level of respect our rights should be given, and you have no idea what my personal opinions are.

    This is, however, about trying to help our friends stay as protected as they can be. Why would you tell them not to when we, as the *only* 501(c)3 in California who a) are setup to assist gunowners regularly, and b) have defended a number of UOC cases, are telling everyone that it makes a difference? Note that we're the only org who has defended UOC and its participants in court.

    You're correct - no simple association makes one opinion more well-founded than another. However, real experience, paid legal counsel, and competence does.

    You can view at our track record here: http://calgunsfoundation.org/about/w...me-lately.html. Can you offer some similar history for consideration? We're winning, not losing, and things are improving. We've only been active as a group for about 2 years, so I'm not sure how your implication that our 'close-mindedness' is the cause of our state's ills even remotely applies. I'm amused that you make an appeal to the Brady's when discussing your perception of our behavior - are you really arguing that, or are you hurt that we have told you that your ideas for gun rights strategy are generally without merit?

    Our suggestion to submit an application will cost the applicant all of postage and a $20 check, many of which will simply be voided and/or returned uncanceled by the agency. Are you saying that people should not risk $25 exposure and subject themselves to the risks of prosecution without having any real evidence to support a defense such that could be made with evidence of a good faith effort to comply with the law?

    If you knew a fraction of the historical or constitutional issues as you claim to, you'd understand that the road to liberty has never been without cost or sacrifice.

    I don't believe what you say so virulently over the internet. The fact is that you only UOC because you're too afraid that doing what is your constitutional right to carry a loaded firearm in the manner you choose would end with you going to jail. You, yourself, follow the government's "permission slip"... by UOCing. Pragmatism isn't such a foreign concept to you after all.

    -Brandon

    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    Its almost as if some people believe they are the only ones with legitimate views on how constitutionally protected rights should be treated and what respect they should be given.

    I don't see anything wrong with posting a constructive opinion, even if it goes against what some people believe is the correct approach. That is the purpose of online forums, for constructive discourse of varying opinions.

    Just because some people are associated with a particular group or foundation does not make their ideas any more valid than others. It is a shame you and other people on calguns are so quick to shoot down those with alternative ideas to restore gun rights in CA. Maybe if you opened your minds a bit and allowed more constructive discourse, CA would not be in such a mess. This kind of idea belittling and censorship is no better than the behavior of the likes of the Bradys.

    You and yours are welcome to burn your money asking for government permission slips and telling others they should do the same. I'll keep educating the public about how to exercise and protect their constitutional rights.

    Cheers!
    Last edited by wildhawker; 12-21-2010 at 02:41 AM.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  10. #10
    Regular Member teemgreen99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Orange County, California
    Posts
    72

    +1 HGreen

    Im going to agree with Harley. As for my personal self I am not going to "apply" for my already given rights. UOC will never become LOC if we all CC. I have CCed and I still prefer OC. Not to mention I wouldnt be on an OC forum if my intentions were to CC.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Born2Lose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    PRK, East County San Diego
    Posts
    262
    Man! It's getting all Thunderdome up in here!
    "Two men enter..one man leaves"
    Mad Max Rockatansky VS Blaster
    I'm not going to get involved in the in-fighting since i think we are all working toward the same goal.

    I said Peruta was "pretty much" over. Could be years away from going to "shall issue" and i don't think the BG's will wait.

    Thanks for the input guys.
    Are there going to be any SD meet ups soon?
    Has anyone found/made a "layer" for Google Earth that shows K-12 private schools?

  12. #12
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
    Our suggestion to submit an application will cost the applicant all of postage and a $20 check, many of which will simply be voided and/or returned uncanceled by the agency. Are you saying that people should not risk $25 exposure and subject themselves to the risks of prosecution without having any real evidence to support a defense such that could be made with evidence of a good faith effort to comply with the law?
    This suggestion is not an unreasonable one, particularly if you realize that there has been no recognition of the RKABA for a concealed weapon by the California legislature in the past 80+ years. If you support the pure right of the Second Amendment, as some of you profess to, you must include concealed carry in that Constitutional perspective. By being a rational thinker, you also must know that the path to Constitutional carry must travel back the way in which we came. That each bridge we crossed and every milestone we passed in the incremental loss of the right must be revisited on the return to our foundation. When these landmarks are revisited, this is our opportunity to overturn them, so that those that follow us will not be bound by the same path we were forced to tread.

    I can think of worse things to spend $25 on. That's a weeks work of Starbucks to some. Or a movie ticket, soft drink and popcorn. Take the 20 minutes to fill out the standard application and make yourself a better litigant in the event your rights are further impaired by a negative police encounter.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Harley is correct!

    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    We also suggest that if you don't live in an area with a sheriff that is virtually shall-issue on CCW that you respect your 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights and not waste your time or money with an invasive, and arguably illegal, CCW application permit and process. Especially since it will surely result in you being denied, which you will then have to report in future CCW applications in other states you may reside in, which may hurt you getting a CCW later on.
    Hey hgreen,

    I agree with your opinion.

    markm

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    What is an opinion?

    Hey wildhawker,

    Your professorial response to hgreen was the problem; not your opinion. We repect your opinion, but we don't like how you and some others respond to our opinions as patently wrong.

    An opinion is based on a percentage of objective fact and subjective feeling, with the product totalling 100%. Some opinions are based more on feelings and less on fact. The reverse can also be true. All real life actions have dynamic factors. The law of unintended consequences affects all of us.

    Why are your feelings more important or more accurate than mine?

    hgreen wrote:

    "Its almost as if some people believe they are the only ones with legitimate views on how constitutionally protected rights should be treated and what respect they should be given."

    +1 hgreen.

    Please, give your opinion and move-on!

    Another poster (not on this thread) has insinuated that he is a "conlaw" expert. Well, truth be told, he isn't a juris doctor. He is a legal laymen like the rest of us. As I get older, I find that we all lack knowledge, especially the brightest and most educated amongst us.

    markm

  15. #15
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
    ... no simple association makes one opinion more well-founded than another. However, real experience, paid legal counsel, and competence does.
    By your logic all the elements you claim make an opinion more "well-founded" than another give the Brady Campaign and LCAV as much legitimacy in their opinions about 2nd amendment issues as Calguns. They have "real experience, paid legal counsel, and .." (they would argue competence), I would argue they have as much if not more competence than most of the comments I read on Calguns forums.

    Quote Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
    I don't believe what you say so virulently over the internet. The fact is that you only UOC because you're too afraid that doing what is your constitutional right to carry a loaded firearm in the manner you choose would end with you going to jail. You, yourself, follow the government's "permission slip"... by UOCing. Pragmatism isn't such a foreign concept to you after all.
    Its interesting how you claim to know facts about someone you have never met or spoken to in person, your statements are pure conjecture and nothing more. This statement leads me and others to question all other statements of "fact" that you make as having as much credibility as this statement. Zero.

    There is no "permission slip" needed to UOC in CA, which I'm sure you know. I do not UOC out of fear, I UOC because I am a law abiding citizen who works within the legal means provided to me in the state I live to affect change through positive community activism and education.

    I for one, as many others, judge an organization not on what they claim to be, but by their fruits. If Calguns' fruits are represented by the statements you post online, then the foundation has some SEVERE credibility issues. They would do well to stop alienating and insulting a very large, powerful, portion of the 2A community in CA.
    Last edited by hgreen; 12-21-2010 at 12:04 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Lose View Post
    Has anyone found/made a "layer" for Google Earth that shows K-12 private schools?
    We have some GIS experts who developed this for the Los Angeles area:

    http://www.southbayopencarry.org/maps/

  17. #17
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    By your logic all the elements you claim make an opinion more "well-founded" than another give the Brady Campaign and LCAV as much legitimacy in their opinions about 2nd amendment issues as Calguns. They have "real experience, paid legal counsel, and .." (they would argue competence), I would argue they have as much if not more competence than most of the comments I read on Calguns forums.
    In some ways, you're correct. LCAV is a worthy adversary. If you think your moral high ground will win the war in court (which translates to those rights which will be protected for what is now 308 Million Americans), then you really have no idea of the game you're playing. Also, why do you put any stake into any "forums"? Let's be real, they are discussion tools, but in no way are they representative of real work product.

    Its interesting how you claim to know facts about someone you have never met or spoken to in person, your statements are pure conjecture and nothing more. This statement leads me and others to question all other statements of "fact" that you make as having as much credibility as this statement. Zero.

    There is no "permission slip" needed to UOC in CA, which I'm sure you know. I do not UOC out of fear, I UOC because I am a law abiding citizen who works within the legal means provided to me in the state I live to affect change through positive community activism and education.

    I for one, as many others, judge an organization not on what they claim to be, but by their fruits. If Calguns' fruits are represented by the statements you post online, then the foundation has some SEVERE credibility issues. They would do well to stop alienating and insulting a very large, powerful, portion of the 2A community in CA.
    UOC is a silent exemption - a "permission slip" of sorts, for doing something "not quite the real thing" - to the state's utter lack of respect for the real right - LOADED carry. Can you tell me where in our history unloaded guns were normally carried for self defense? Are you arguing that unloaded carry is a real self-defense tool? I'm perplexed that you agree with the anti-gun judge in Pertua.

    I know enough about you that you're not willing to exercise the real right. This means that you're practical. You understand that breaking the law - unconstitutional though it may be - leads to pain and loss of access (to your teaching tools) for you. That is a rational decision. What's irrational is telling other people to ignore good advice simply because your version of reality says that being prudent while fighting a very dangerous war is unnecessary, and more, giving up ground.

    Do you really think that the whole of the OC community feels alienated? I'm curious how you think that I'm "alienating and insulting a very large, powerful, portion of the 2A community in CA". First, can you tell me how you measure "large" and "powerful"? Secondly, I've been, and remain, good friends with many in the U/OC subset of 2A. Here's something to consider: I'm a big fan of OC, and am equally interested in constitutional carry. The road to freedom goes through California, but California is not where I intend to live my final days. I'm here because the fights we must win are here. I have a network of properties in "free" states and a ranch in a open carry state. Do you think I want to carry concealed when I go from the field to the farm supply store? I've a personal investment in winning the war, as do you. If we sat down for coffee, you and I would almost certainly agree more than we disagree. The difference, I'd offer, is in approach - and the difference is fairly significant.

    I'm not telling people that they should not participate in UOC activities. I do believe that some are useful, and some are harmful - as in all things in life, energy tends to be destructive, so it's the well-planned and executed which bring returns for our cause. I also believe that your rage against the "permission slips" is not entirely wrong, it's just wrong as-applied. Furthermore, we should be doing what we can to help our fellow carriers, including giving them the greatest chance of a) defending against prosecution and b) creating good law from the facts. This, I believe, is accomplished through the 30 minutes it takes to fill out and mail in an application and a check for $20. If you really think this is giving up ground, then I'd say that you're not being realistic about the field of battle. That sort of leadership gets troops killed.

    Someone as informed and sophisticated as you are may not have trouble managing the task of staying clear of the ills which can befall participants of UOC - ills which we have and continue to defend - but do at least acknowledge that as a leader, you have a responsibility to the full spectrum of people you lead, including those who are intoxicated with your message yet lack the ability to always live it just outside that 1000ft zone.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post

    Another poster (not on this thread) has insinuated that he is a "conlaw" expert.

    markm
    Never stated or even insinuated that I was, Mark, as the point I was making was that Kevin was not a constitutional law expert either, and I hired a competent attorney on 2A issues so that Colorado's RKBA application wouldn't suddenly end up horrific merely because I represented. You're crossing close to the threshold of false attribution.

  19. #19
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    wildhawker,
    I'm not here trying to pick personal fights with Calguns. I think their goals are the exact same as mine.

    As we've discovered our opinions for an approach are different. I totally understand what hypothetical value your strategy believes being denied will offer in the future, but it is not a sure thing, yet you act like it is gospel truth that it is a MUST DO for anyone who UOCs, which is just not true.

    My biggest concern is with the approach that Calguns is taking in the way they are disseminating information about the CCW initiative and encouraging people to blindly apply for permits without giving equal weight to the potential NEGATIVE impacts that doing so could have or imply.

    For example, most of your posts essentially say "before you UOC apply for a CCW, here is template form..." This does not properly inform people of the implications of the current CA DOJ standard application questions and the future impacts that a denial may have on their future abilities to obtain CCWs (most apps I've seen ask if you've ever been denied a CCW or equivalent). While it may not completely prevent someone, it may raise red flags for the issuing authority and cause undue hassle, while the benefits of applying and being denied at this point are purely hypothetical.

    My suggestion would be for Calguns to include the asterisk type comments I've described in your posts where you recommend to 2A newcomers so that they are not blind sided down the road. It would show that you have a strategy, but also understand there are certain costs in terms of constitutional rights being temporarily given up to (in your opinion) make way for greater 2A victories down the road.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    wildhawker,
    I'm not here trying to pick personal fights with Calguns. I think their goals are the exact same as mine.

    As we've discovered our opinions for an approach are different. I totally understand what hypothetical value your strategy believes being denied will offer in the future, but it is not a sure thing, yet you act like it is gospel truth that it is a MUST DO for anyone who UOCs, which is just not true.
    My biggest concern is with the approach that Calguns is taking in the way they are disseminating information about the CCW initiative and encouraging people to blindly apply for permits without giving equal weight to the potential NEGATIVE impacts that doing so could have or imply.

    For example, most of your posts essentially say "before you UOC apply for a CCW, here is template form..." This does not properly inform people of the implications of the current CA DOJ standard application questions and the future impacts that a denial may have on their future abilities to obtain CCWs (most apps I've seen ask if you've ever been denied a CCW or equivalent). While it may not completely prevent someone, it may raise red flags for the issuing authority and cause undue hassle, while the benefits of applying and being denied at this point are purely hypothetical.

    My suggestion would be for Calguns to include the asterisk type comments I've described in your posts where you recommend to 2A newcomers so that they are not blind sided down the road. It would show that you have a strategy, but also understand there are certain costs in terms of constitutional rights being temporarily given up to (in your opinion) make way for greater 2A victories down the road.
    Let me sum it up for you: the state's highest criminal courts in the states of Maryland and Massachusetts suggested that unless you attempt to apply for a license to possess/carry and are denied, you wouldn't have the ability to use a 2A defense to carrying unlawfully, because they're interpreting 2A as a procedural right wrongfully. The state courts in California are steeped in the kind of anti-gun revisionism. What we're saying is that for some reason you end up in a school zone (no knowledge that it was there), and your arrested, the fact that you attempted to apply for a license and were denied, can bolster your criminal defense significantly. Call it a weak vaccine.

    On the other issues of about denials:

    Salute v. Pitchess and state law trumps any hypothetical "red flags" you can use.

    Citing Salute:

    (2) While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. (1b) We regard the case at bench as involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute. Section 12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

    The petition before us alleges that petitioners are of good moral character and are residents of Los Angeles County. It is admitted that no inquiry into the existence of good cause has ever been made in connection with the application of these petitioners, or of any other applicant outside the limited group of public officials. It is the duty of the sheriff to make such an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application under section 12050.


    To my knowledge of the numerous amounts of research on sheriff policies, only three sheriff's have an illegal requirement that anyone who is denied shall be denied again. One of them does not enforce it (Placer). The remaining two are still in process of being dealt with. Salute is crystal clear: The sheriff must do an investigation, on an individual basis, on every application under PC12050. They cannot use an out like "you were denied before", or "our good cause standard is more for you because you've been denied before". These are all state law violations and are being dealt with.

    These isn't even a question of constitutionality. This is a case of clear statutory law, and it wasn't until very recently that there was a group of dedicated individuals on the subject of carry licensing compliance telling the sheriff's to stop playing games or we will litigate against them. Solano County dropped their unlawfully high fee requirements and taking money up front, and there's other things that's being worked . San Mateo County dropped ALL of their law violative policies and significantly revised their good cause requirements (for the better), and Riverside County no longer takes all fees up front and doesn't require the extra forms to be filled out anymore (yes, the packet is slightly out of date, you can walk in using the standard app and expect to be processed).

    As for concerns about 5th amendment issues with the application, I believe that a solution is coming for that quite soon, if it hasn't already.

    See for yourself: CGF Custom App that's somewhat 5th amendment compliant. I believe another app will be coming with similar language soon.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Lose View Post
    New to this board but not to guns.
    I've been reading up on all the pamphlets, encounters, suggestions, warnings, etc on the CA forum.
    Now that i'm getting a little older and have a wife and a daughter firearms have gone from a hobby to a necessity.
    I think i was putting way to much hope in the Peruta case and now that it is (pretty much) over i've decided that UOC is the only viable option.
    I seriously considered CC'ing anyway but decided that it's stupid to do as the whole point of UOC is to protect myself and my family which is pretty hard to do behind bars.
    Have any of you San Diego folks made up a school zone map? Are there any East County locations that you would be "safe" for a first time UOC outing? (ie out of school zone danger and not ANTI OC)
    When is the next outing?

    Thanks for your help and input guys.
    Back on topic, we are on holiday break for group gatherings, but we do monday nights in San Diego. Just be on the lookout for "San Diego weekly meet up"
    New to OPEN CARRY? Click here first

    "Gun owners in California in 2011 are like black people in the south in 1955. If you don't understand that then your concepts of fighting for gun rights is just tilting at windmills." Gene Hoffman.

    "Why do you need to carry a gun?" ...Because it not a Bill of Needs, its a Bill of Rights!!

  22. #22
    Regular Member Born2Lose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    PRK, East County San Diego
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    Back on topic, we are on holiday break for group gatherings, but we do monday nights in San Diego. Just be on the lookout for "San Diego weekly meet up"
    Thanks Firemark I'll keep an eye out.

    Anyone have any locations that aren't opposed or don't make a big deal out of UOC?
    Like if i go to Target/Albertsons/Parkway Plaza/etc are they going to freak?
    Any good/bad businesses with the East County?

    Thanks all.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Lose View Post
    Thanks Firemark I'll keep an eye out.

    Anyone have any locations that aren't opposed or don't make a big deal out of UOC?
    Like if i go to Target/Albertsons/Parkway Plaza/etc are they going to freak?
    Any good/bad businesses with the East County?

    Thanks all.
    The shorter list is who doesn't allow OC.

    California Pizza Kitchen
    Peets Coffee

    I have no knowledge of East county but most people just go. If you ask permission first than you'll probably get a knee jerk no but if you just go in, spend money, and show that you're a normal customer than businesses usually don't mind. If you are asked to leave then respectfully state your case and educate and then leave without making a scene.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    26
    careful with parkway plaza they like to 86 UOCers for life... do a search for Parkway and also westfield shopping centers on this site there are a few people that arent allowed back in them due to UOC

  25. #25
    Regular Member Born2Lose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    PRK, East County San Diego
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by chewy352 View Post
    The shorter list is who doesn't allow OC.

    California Pizza Kitchen
    Peets Coffee

    I have no knowledge of East county but most people just go. If you ask permission first than you'll probably get a knee jerk no but if you just go in, spend money, and show that you're a normal customer than businesses usually don't mind. If you are asked to leave then respectfully state your case and educate and then leave without making a scene.
    I saw the new examiner article today that lists pro and anti in the southbay.
    http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-an...rried-firearms

    Quote Originally Posted by 619P95 View Post
    careful with parkway plaza they like to 86 UOCers for life... do a search for Parkway and also westfield shopping centers on this site there are a few people that arent allowed back in them due to UOC
    Thanks 619P95.
    That's the kind of info i'm looking for.
    Since I've lived in East County my entire life that'd be very bad if Paul Blart banned me from Parkway Plaza forever.
    Althought it'd be a handy excuse as to why i didn't buy an anniversary/birthday/christmas present for my wife.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •