IMMEDIATE CALIFORNIA SHALL-ISSUE!!! Read this, guys!

[SodiumBenzoate]

# 1 is an awesome idea.

In 1992, there were 362,142 CCW permit holders in Pennsylvania.

At that time, Pennsylvania had a population of 11 million, about.

Multiply this by three for the approximate population of California, and you've got well over 1 million CCW holders. At $100 a pop, that sheriff's department would be, quite literally, rolling in it.

However, I doubt the rate would be that high, seeing as the Pennsylvania permit is only $19, and the overall attitude towards firearms and carrying is much looser.

 

[Jim March]

Contacts are being made. More news tomorrow, I hope. Can't go into details on counties being approached, but have a line on a leader in a county chamber of commerce who's pro-gun, in a VERY good candidate county and may be able to help make the approach to the sheriff.

Hang tight .

SodiumBenzoate: assuming a "permitholder density" of only 1/6th the TX rate (which in turn is lower than PA), we're looking at 20,000 to 40,000 "potential customers" in the SF Bay Area and surrounding NorCal areas (basically Fresno north) and at least double that for SoCal. That's minimum.

Assuming two counties jump in, and assuming $20 processing costs per for a profit of $80 a pop, that's a *minimum* of $1.6mil (20,000 permits). If no SoCal/central counties such as Kern or Kings jump, it could easily go to 80,000 permits - $6.4mil.

Believe me, in the counties I'm looking at, even $1.6mil would be a Godsend.

 

[fjolnirsson]

I would just like to say once more.
Jim, thank you for your hard work on behalf of the common man.

 

[gunsmith]

Reciprocity?

Isn't there a LE reciprocity bill working it's way slowly through the House of Rep's?
If this plan is a success would we enjoy LE reciprocity ?

 

[Frohickey]

Jim,

What type of training requirements do you think these candidate counties would like? I could see a big plus for being 'licensed' in other neighboring states, or states, such as Washington, Florida or Nevada. Sure, this would tend to decrease the number of people willing to shell out that kind of dough, but there is something to be said about giving a CCW-ability to people that are already 'licensed' in other states in the Union.

The plus to this, is if the California media were to run various hit-pieces as to what these candidate counties are doing in order to generate revenue, they can immediately counter it with "These law-abiding people are licensed in other states to carry concealed weapons. Isn't it ironic that the person's state of residence would deny these law-abiding people permits, yet another state would grant them a license?"

Might want to limit this 'neighboring-state-CCW permit' to states that have as stringent of a training requirement than the average California county. Of course, this would entail some sort of research into what 'average California county training requirements' are.

The minus that I see is that people would be sending some money out of California in the form of training and licensing fees, but this could turn out to be a positive as well, if this idea catches on. Some California counties could wise up and say "HEY! Look at these CCW people. They are ponying up $50 for a Arizona CCW license. That could be $50 a pop going into MY budget!"

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE GREEDY NATURE OF CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS.

Besides, what are the anti-gun mommies gonna do, write $100 checks to the government? All 8 of them?

 

[Jim March]

OK. Training.

A lot of these rural agencies don't even require training for their normal in-county applicants. Whether we can get that to carry over to the "emergency reserve deputy program" or whatever is an open question. The rural sheriff in question may want to mandate SOME sort of training standard.

If so, the question is "what sort of CCW training is available locally all over California, and can be documented as to what's in it?".

NRA training fails on two counts: the "personal protection" class is specifically labeled as NOT a CCW course, and even if it was the curriculum details are "secret" - trainers aren't even allowed to publish a detailed course description, it's an NRA trade secret.

So what DOES exist?

"Utah-standard" training. The state of Utah has clear published standards, a detailed curriculum and they've approved over 50 California trainers scattered all over the state. THIS state, not Utah (though there's yet more there of course).

If we do CCW training, that's our best bet. It fits into one day, costs are reasonable, availability is more or less local all over the state. Utah has a site listing the names, addresses and phone numbers of all approved trainers, so there's no problem finding them.

 

[artherd]

Jim- that sounds like a very good idea. I am going to get my Florida non-resident permit post-haste!

 

[BadWolf]

Hi Jim,

Again, a big thank you for all the great work you're doing...

Question-

Assuming they agree to accept utah training, etc.

If we already have a Utah ccw, would we still need to take the class again?

Thanks!

 

[jnojr]

A thought... is there any requirement for applicants to appear in person? Who cares if it's the northernmost county in CA if the process can be done via mail or over the phone Either way, I, for one, would be willing to make a trip to wherever to do this, especially if the "in person" process can be done inside of one day.

Also... we know the liberal politicians and media will have major strokes over this. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a statement, a press release of some sort, readied up? After we get the ball rolling, and the first few dozen people have gone through the process, we take the offensive and announce what's going on, rather than "hide in the darkness" and wait for the "noble seekers of the truth" to "discover" what's going on. If this situation was outed by the media, they would make it look like an extreme-right-wing conspiracy. But if we stand up and say "Here's what we're doing, here's why we're doing it, and here are the facts", that wuld take a lot of the wind out of the lefts sails.

 

[BadWolf]

Hi Jim,

Again, a big thank you for all the great work you're doing...

Question-

Assuming they agree to accept utah training, etc.

If we already have a Utah ccw, would we still need to take the class again?

Thanks!

 

[Jim March]

IF we can get an agency to accept "Utah-grade training" as a standard then sure, a valid Utah permit would be obvious proof. OR you could go get a class certificate by a trainer on the Utah-state-published approved trainer list, and whether or not you finalized the Utah process or not would be up to you.

----------

I visited two sheriff's offices today. Wasn't able to see the big cheese in either case (too busy) but was able to drop off the four-page packets plus my business cards. In one case, talked to somebody familiar with the process there. This sheriff has an interesting take on the training: existing applicants are being sent to the local community college where they're taking "part" of the three-day POST program for basic renta-cops. It's eight hours, and covers the handgun safety portion.

Hmmmm. Well it *should* be possible to take that same "subset" of the course at any community college, so that's workable. But I suspect the Utah-style training may include more "legal use of force" issues which in my opinion are THE most critical part of any CCW course.

Anyhow...such training quibbles are just details and can be solved one way or the other. The first thing is to get one of these folks to "bite" in the first place.

----------

On applying in person: we'll have to do at LEAST one trip up there, and possibly two. Not sure about the second yet. One thing I'd like to set up: do a web-form-submittal version of the state-standard CCW application form and a one-page "apply for limited emergency reserve deputy status" form. By doing these online, we could feed the data into a standard database on a computer the sheriff's office runs. Result: near-zero clerical costs/time. And believe me, when we're talking about 20,000 - 80,000 permits, that's *critical*.

Shouldn't be hard, right? The code would be similar to, say, submitting/editing your profile info right here on TheHighRoad. These form pages would be linked straight off of the target county's website.

Unfortunately, in addition to the electronic form, we'll have to submit a paper copy...because first, DOJ needs that and second, they need your paper signature.

But that's OK. You'd be instructed to fill out the web version and then print out and fill out the paper version and bring that in. An extra database field would be viewable and controllable by the sheriff's staff only, basically a checkbox that says "has a real paper app been submitted? [yes/no]".

That way, if the Commie Mommies or whatever flood in a bunch of joke on-screen apps, it doesn't matter. They'll just sit there in the database until the paper app comes in, gets briefly reviewed for completeness and then a "checkbox" gets turned on showing that it's there.

Ummm...in other words, Jim Diver applies with the web-form on April 18th. It just sits there until his paper app comes in to the department on April 23rd (hand-delivered, mailed, whatever). A clerk flips through the paper copy, says "yup, it's a good one" and looks up the "Diver, Jim" entry that came in back on the 18th and "turns it on"...no re-typing of anything, just an electronic checkmark. Now the rest of the process can start. Total clerical time: 5 minutes, tops. Paper copy can now go to the DOJ along with the fingerprint card - the sheriff's office has the electronic record, doesn't need the paper in theory although keeping a copy wouldn't be a bad idea.

This makes the paper-handling on the scale needed practical.

 

[jnojr]

Why could we not mail a signed application? Notarized, if necessary? And why would two trips be necessary if not?

I don't think there's any legal requirement for an in-person appearance. I certainly wouldn't mind taking a trip up, but it would be preferable to keep it to one trip instead of two, and zero instead of one...

Also, if it would be helpful to donate hosting for the web-based application to handle submissions, LMK. It wouldn't do to swamp a rural Sheriffs T1, or run up a big bandwidth bill for them. Also, we have to consider the possibility that some nutso anti might think a DoS (Denial of Service) attack would be a good idea... "I'm just trying to prevent a flood of schoolkid-killing weapons from entering our wonderful Utopian state! <sniff>"

 

[Frohickey]

Good idea about the web-based application (free data entry), and then sending the signed application form back to the issuing agency. To make this stuff attractive, we really need to maximize the issuing agency's revenue for the CCW issuance.

I would venture that at least one visit is to give the rural sheriff a good-looksee as to who he is issuing to. I know, that doesn't feel like a sheriff that understands the meaning of 'shall-not-be-infringed', but the law is that we, in California are still in a may-issue state. Until all of us California gun owners get off our butts and make shall-issue a reality, this is the way it currently is.

(Hopefully, Don Kilmer would eventually make his RKBA constitutional amendment petition drive a reality. It doesn't seem like its gonna happen in 2004 though. )

 

[Jim March]

Well I'm studying these details now but it LOOKS like the fingerprinting must happen at the issuing agency. It's...complicated, and I'm checking other sources. It may be possible to do the fingerprinting at your local police agency and then pay them to mail it to the issuing agency...but if, say, San Francisco PD realized what the prints were FOR...ahhh, what are the odds things are gonna go smoothly?

So...looks to me like that first trip early in the process involves the prints.

The good news: even rural sheriffs have all gone to Livescan (digital prints). Faster and more reliable processing.

Web-app: well there's a number of options. We'd need the sheriff's office to "own" the process...we can help with setup, we can help with web-design, I have the pieces laying around for a decent P2/500-grade machine to run the database on...but...there's confidential info involved, isn't there?

It's all solvable though.

 

[Frohickey]

Fingerprinting could be done is conjunction with taking the course for CCW. Add to this the face-to-face meeting with the rural sheriff, and that would make for a full day. Then, when the background check passes, the CCW license could be issued and mailed out. I see no reason that applications could not be sent on ahead, via mail with signature, held until the day of the CCW course, where fingerprints are taken, and the CCW course is taken.

Doesn't have to be serialized. Parallel processing, baby!

 

[Jim March]

There is NO possibility of centralizing the training at the rural county. None have anywhere near the facilities...in terms of raw number of shooting lanes at available ranges!

So training has to be spread out. Community college POST programs and Utah-certified instructors are both available all over the state.

 

[gunsmith]

fingerprints shouldn't be a problem

"live scan"
Most Departments use that nowadays,private biz that subcontracts to the state and email the results in.
There is one on Church st in the Castro District of SF

 

[jnojr]

Today probably wouldn't be a good day to pursue this plan...

 

[colossians323]

Men (and women),
I'm new to this forum, and this thread really caught my eye, since I too live in the PRK.
Is this for real, or is this some cruel joke?
Are real legal teams involved?
What is the chance a Sherriff would actually go on the line and do this, especially when one cannot get a meeting with one?
What can the average gun owner of the PRK do to help?

I've shared this thread with a few nay-sayers, (fellow gun owners) and they all say this will never happen.
I've talked with some Kalifornian police officers about the concept, they also concur this will never happen.
Is there any chance this thread is being monitored by the freedom haters, and they already are counteracting what you are trying to accomplish, being on a public forum?
Sorry for all the questions, but livintg i the PRK, its hard to keep your hopes up for anything having to do with our Second Ammendment.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

Humane Society Officer

The basic idea is sound, but doing it on the county level is dubious. Read the California Corporations Code sections 14500-14503.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/corp/14500-14503.html

Humane society officers exercise police powers under the California Food & Agriculture, Penal, and Health & Safety Codes. Here is a partial list of the powers and code sections:

* May initiate proceedings to collect civil penalties relating to spaying or neutering, pursuant to section 31763 of the Food & Agriculture Code.
* May seize, care for and euthanize animals that are without proper care, pursuant to Penal Code section 597.1 and 597f(b).
* Is required to locate owners of certain animals for the purpose of returning lost animals to the owners, pursuant to Penal Code section 597.1(l).
* Is required to assist horse owners who need to abandon or give up ownership of their horses, pursuant to Penal Code section 597.2.
* Must inspect vehicles that transport horses to slaughter, per Penal Code section 597o(a)(12).
* May cite horse owners and keepers who fail to meet certain standards for humane treatment of horses, pursuant to Health Safety Code section 25988.
* May inspect the records of pet dealers pertaining to the health, status, and disposition of dogs and cats pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 122145.

Humane officers also are grouped with officers "of a district, county, or city" with respect to Government Code provisions relating to misconduct in office and removal from office. (See Government Code section 3060-3075.)

Licensing dogs and performing other governmental functions for a city is further evidence that the humane society is a public authority. The ability to issue dog licenses is a governmental function, not a private one. (See California Government Code section 38792(a), "The legislative body of a city may impose and collect a license fee for a period not to exceed two years and not exceeding the cost of services relating to dogs...")

Functioning under contract as an animal control agency is also a factor that may make a humane society the equivalent of a governmental entity. An animal control agency is specifically referred to as a "local public agency" in places throughout the California codes (see, i.e., the reference in Government Code section 53126.5 to "a local public agency such as street maintenance and animal control.") Similarly, animal control services are included in the list of governmental services in the "County Service Area Law." (See Government Code sections 25210.1-25210.9c, especially 25210.4a which refers to "animal control" as one of the "miscellaneous extended services" covered by the County Service Area Law.)

It is indispensable to consult the printed version of the California Code for history and case law before proceeding any further.

 

[Jim March]

First, this is NOT a joke.

I have an appointment with the actual sheriff of a good candidate county on April 15th. I've got documents in with two others and I'm scheduled to call them back today.

How likely is this? The legal issues have been reviewed by two attorneys. It'll work. Police Chief Byrd of Isleton did this back in the early/mid 1990s and it advanced interest in the whole concept of CCW. Unfortunately, a chief isn't high up enough to stand up to the criticism but even then he held on for years.

Will a sheriff jump? The money is quite real. I wouldn't be trying this except for the really crazy budget crunch at the county gov't level which is NOT going to get better for at least 2 to 3 years.

 

[ecwood]

Jim,
I just read something in an older CRPA Firing Line article that said something to the effect that $90 of the $118 for a CCW went to the DOJ for the background check. I for one would be happy to pay and extra $90 for "special Training" (even if it's really just a secret handshake.) to make the offer more interesting.

 

[Gordon Fink]

What is the chance a Sherriff would actually go on the line and do this…?

Very small, in my opinion, but stranger things have happened. I’ll remain cautiously optimistic for now.

~G. Fink

 

[jnojr]

This isn't that far-fetched. Legally, it's sound... Sacramento couldn't send the DOJ to arrest the Sheriff in question. There would be two possible responses... A) pass a law to ban doing this (which would probably/hopefully be fiercely contested, maybe with "If you want to ban this, then fine... reform CCW laws so issuance of a CCW is based on objective criteria instead of subjective"); or B) try to unseat said Sheriff in the next election. *That* wouldn't go over too well in a rural, conservative county that already hates and despises the liberals in Sacramento and that has seen the benefit of millions of dollars flowing into their county, relieving taxes. Heck, the Sheriff who does this will be one *very* popular guy or gal!

The biggest concern in the Sheriffs mind will be liability... "What if I do this, issue 100,000 CCWs and then just one of them does something stupid?" *That* would have a very negative reaction in the newspapers... the liberal media would love to jump on the one exception out of 100,000 otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizens and use it as a forum for ending CCWs and private firearm ownership, etc. My response to that is A) all candidates still have the background check, and B) the Sheriff can deny issuance to *anyone* not only on "good cause" but also by denying their application to be a reserve Deputy. Also, I think we can count on the NRA, the CRPA, the CCRKBA, and every other 2A lobby or group to stand up and denounce any CCW holder who fscked off... no special club here. Public opinion in the liberal cities would be loud and shrill, but statewide, I think most people would absolutely recognize that an aberration does not a bad program make.

Earlier, I thought that the process could be done by mail... boy, that'd be nice! But maybe having a face-to-face would help the Sheriff to determine that the person in question is a straight shooter. It would sure gum up the process, though... how fast could a rural Sheriffs Department process applications, conduct interviews, etc.?

 

[Carnitas]

The biggest concern in the Sheriffs mind will be liability... "What if I do this, issue 100,000 CCWs and then just one of them does something stupid?"

Jim,

Had a couple ideas for providing some protection on this front.

1) Part of the agreement should be that the Sheriff will be second on the post incident call list (after the attorney). That way if there is a negative circimstance the Sheriff will have a chance to get ahead of it and wont be blindsided by a reporter.

2) Any self defense action will be reported to the Sheriff. Even if its a minor deal that would otherwise go unreported. This way the Sheriff could compile a file so than when a bad shoot does come down the Sheriff can say somthing like "Yeah, Jim did screw up and he's going to pay the price. But, I dont feel bad about my issueing permits cause I've got this big fat file of people who I've issued permits to that have used their weapons to preserve the lives of therselves and their families.