But like I just said to friends about NY, that doesn't mean they wont. Even if it just buys them minor delays. They don't care about SCOTUS or the constitution, or... honest fair elections, they do whatever they need to in order to get their way. So they play the shell game and it buys them a year? That's one more year than if they hadn't.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
This is true, but that's not going to work well any longer. Thomas painted the federal courts into a corner on 2A cases. They can't weasel around the 2A by what was known as two step analysis. They have to decide 2A cases directly and only on the language of the second amendment, which doesn't really give them much wiggle room to not enforce it as written.

I don't disagree, but I still think they'll try and thread that needle while accepting their efforts will land them back in court. It's all a game of delay and work the system, given that's the only way liberals can get their way, even part of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
This is true, but that's not going to work well any longer. Thomas painted the federal courts into a corner on 2A cases. They can't weasel around the 2A by what was known as two step analysis. They have to decide 2A cases directly and only on the language of the second amendment, which doesn't really give them much wiggle room to not enforce it as written.

I don't disagree, but I still think they'll try and thread that needle while accepting their efforts will land them back in court. It's all a game of delay and work the system, given that's the only way liberals can get their way, even part of the time.

Exactly.
Those counties/cities/states that were No Issue, will still require background checks in any application, along with letters of recommendation, photographs, prints, reason for permit, interview, shooting test, whatever ridiculous fee's and surcharges they can pile-on, etc. They can't deny an applicant the right to issue but, they will find any reason they can to deny an applicant through an onerous bureaucracy process via absolute due diligence.

Hi, I'm checking on my application, that I submitted 6-weeks ago...

Yeah, its no good, you submitted the packet in the wrong order.

When I gave officer Smith my packet, he went through it and said it all looks good...

Well, we found a few of your documents not in the right sequence and your test date is too old. You'll have to re-apply.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Sac county, like neighboring Yolo County (Davis ) are highly restrictive in their issuance of CCW permits.

Sacramento County has been as close to shall issue as possible for some time. General self-defense is sufficient at this time, and the state Attorney General's updates make it even easier.

One of the biggest issues is the time it takes for CA DOJ to clear fingerprints for CCW - it is very low priority.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
This is true, but that's not going to work well any longer. Thomas painted the federal courts into a corner on 2A cases. They can't weasel around the 2A by what was known as two step analysis. They have to decide 2A cases directly and only on the language of the second amendment, which doesn't really give them much wiggle room to not enforce it as written.

I don't disagree, but I still think they'll try and thread that needle while accepting their efforts will land them back in court. It's all a game of delay and work the system, given that's the only way liberals can get their way, even part of the time.

Exactly.
Those counties/cities/states that were No Issue, will still require background checks in any application, along with letters of recommendation, photographs, prints, reason for permit , interview, shooting test, whatever ridiculous fee's and surcharges they can pile-on, etc. They can't deny an applicant the right to issue but, they will find any reason they can to deny an applicant through an onerous bureaucracy process via absolute due diligence.

Hi, I'm checking on my application, that I submitted 6-weeks ago...

Yeah, its no good, you submitted the packet in the wrong order.

When I gave officer Smith my packet, he went through it and said it all looks good...

Well, we found a few of your documents not in the right sequence and your test date is too old. You'll have to re-apply.

I struck out one of your conditions. The door's been slammed on that one.

As I said somewhere either in this thread or elsewhere, the likely biggest effect of this ruling is the change in standard of analysis that the Supremes imposed on 2A cases. There are going to be a few future thrusts of litigation, since I see this as an opening of the floodgates. One of them will be attacking constructive obstruction of the right to keep and bear arms, where government entities impose not hard and fast bans, but stacks of bureaucracy to discourage citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

There are a few things I'd like to see in this regard. First, I'd like some organization like the Second Amendment Foundation, to back an individual who is applying for paperwork in a 2A unfriendly state, to carefully document the roadblocks throw in the applicants, then using that as a basis for a lawsuit attacking that process. Second, I'd like to see a conservative, gun friendly state impose a somewhat onerous licensing requirement on journalists. It really doesn't matter what it is, as long as it makes them jump through hoops, pay fees, and wait to get the license. This would be done to intentionally draw a challenge. And that challenge would likely win. In doing so it would create a precedent that licensure cannot be imposed on constitutional rights. Wouldn't that be useful.

quote:

Originally posted by SigSAC:
Sacramento County has been as close to shall issue as possible for some time. General self-defense is sufficient at this time, and the state Attorney General's updates make it even easier.

One of the biggest issues is the time it takes for CA DOJ to clear fingerprints for CCW - it is very low priority.

Coincidently, I ran into Sheriff Scott Jones at the grocery store 10 days ago. He doesn't know me from Adam, but I made sure to thank him for making CCW much easier to get than his predecessor.

I wish the state would revise the policy that would make CCW valid longer than 2 years. $200 every 24 months is pricey.

I submitted my application last night to SD County Sheriff. Per San Diego County Gun Owners Assn I put “N/A” for good cause statement.
I have an appointment for interview: April 3, 2023.

Something’s still got to change here.

quote:

I wish the state would revise the policy that would make CCW valid longer than 2 years. $200 every 24 months is pricey.

I'm surprised that hasn't come up in a lawsuite. I mean, being a financial burden on the poor for a constitutional right...

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
As I said somewhere either in this thread or elsewhere, the likely biggest effect of this ruling is the change in standard of analysis that the Supremes imposed on 2A cases. There are going to be a few future thrusts of litigation, since I see this as an opening of the floodgates. One of them will be attacking constructive obstruction of the right to keep and bear arms, where government entities impose not hard and fast bans, but stacks of bureaucracy to discourage citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

There are a few things I'd like to see in this regard. First, I'd like some organization like the Second Amendment Foundation, to back an individual who is applying for paperwork in a 2A unfriendly state, to carefully document the roadblocks throw in the applicants, then using that as a basis for a lawsuit attacking that process.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

I wish the state would revise the policy that would make CCW valid longer than 2 years. $200 every 24 months is pricey.

I'm surprised that hasn't come up in a lawsuite. I mean, being a financial burden on the poor for a constitutional right...

This is the new challenge for 2A legal advocacy, dealing with onerous and burdensome bureaucracy and fees, along with the predatory legal enforcement against CCL holders who use their firearms. Organizations like the NRA are simply there to protect the large corporations, whereas FPC, SAF, CRPA, USCCA, etc. have demonstrated their interests lay with the private citizen and their rights. We know deep blue states/counties/municipalities are going to try and do everything they can to obstruct and drag their feet, on issuance and recognition of CCL's, along with coming down hard on those who utilize their freedom's in their defense.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I submitted my application last night to SD County Sheriff. Per San Diego County Gun Owners Assn I put “N/A” for good cause statement.
I have an appointment for interview: April 3, 2023.

Something’s still got to change here.

If they have an online portal for applications, check it frequently - you might be able to move the appointment closer to now. Sacramento County had the same issue - many applicants, limited staff. Several people I know were able to move their appointments up quite a bit.

Just don't update it so that you have an appointment the same day - give it a few days. They like to have the folders ready and on their desk when they meet you.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I submitted my application last night to SD County Sheriff. Per San Diego County Gun Owners Assn I put “N/A” for good cause statement.
I have an appointment for interview: April 3, 2023.

Appointments going into next year was the case BEFORE the Supreme Court ruling. Not saying it's right, but at least they are issuing permits.

I got mine years ago when there were only 1000 permits issued in the entire county. That number was the norm for several years but in the last 5-6 years; the permits issued for the county has increased to currently around 6500 and that was BEFORE the ruling.

They have done a few things to speed up the process like using an online application process and mailing permits but still, it will take time for them to get up to speed and make the process timely by our standards. It won't happen overnight.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I submitted my application last night to SD County Sheriff. Per San Diego County Gun Owners Assn I put “N/A” for good cause statement.
I have an appointment for interview: April 3, 2023.

Something’s still got to change here.

If there's a space/box the fill in for a 'good cause statement' I would enter "All Lawful Purposes"!

SigSAC, thanks for the advice. I know from SDCGOA that appointments have already been many months out, no surprise there.