Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Law Offices of Vincent J. LaBarbera
20 followers
20 followers
About
Posts

Procrastination is opportunity's assassin:  Orange County Sheriff's Department will no longer issue Concealed Carry Permits (CCW) without "good cause" as of 3/26/15.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to rehear the 2014 Peruta v. San Diego case which held that "good cause" requirements for issuing concealed weapons permits violated the Second Amendment.  This means the February 2014 prior decision now no longer has precedential value. 
 
What does this mean for the issuance of permits by the Orange County Sheriff's Department?

Although the OCSD has been issuing CCW permits since the initial Peruta decision for self defense without more stringent "good cause" documentation, it maintained that if the court decided to rehear the Peruta case en banc, it might change its relaxed policy on issuing CCW permits back to the previous "good cause" standards. Indeed, after notice of rehearing on Peruta, Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens changed the policy on all permits approved after Thursday, March 26, 2015.

If I already have a CCW, will I be able to keep my permit?

Yes, all current licenses are lawful and will not be recalled. However, when it is time for renewal, if the court has not yet issued its decision, licensees will likely be required to provide supplemental information and documentation supporting "good cause" according to previous pre-Peruta standards to maintain their permit.

What is the current standard for "good cause" in Orange County pending rehearing?

The OCSD "good cause" standard is articulated in Policy 218.

"1. Criteria that may establish good cause include the following:

Specific evidence that there has been or is likely to be an attempt on the part of a second party to do great bodily harm to the applicant.


The nature of the business or occupation of the applicant is such that it is subject to high personal risk and / or criminal attack, far greater risk than the general population.


A task of the business or occupation of the applicant requires frequent transportation of large sums of money or other valuables and alternative protective measures or security cannot be employed.


When a business or occupation is of a high-risk nature and requires the applicant's presence in a dangerous environment.


The occupation or business of the applicant is such that no means of protection, security or risk avoidance can mitigate the risk other than the carrying of a concealed weapon.


Personal protection is warranted to mitigate a threat to the applicant that the applicant is able to substantiate.


Good cause could include, but not be limited to, documented instances of threats to the personal safety of the applicant, his / her family or employees. Threats to personal safety may be verbal or demonstrated through actual harm committed in the place of work, neighborhood or regular routes of travel for business. The applicant should articulate the threat as it applies personally to the applicant, his / her family or employees.


The finding of good cause should recognize that individuals may also face threats to their safety by virtue of their profession, business or status and by virtue of their ability to readily access materials that if forcibly taken would be a danger to society. Threats should be articulated by the applicant by virtue of his / her unique circumstances.


Note: These examples are not intended to be all-inclusive they are provided merely for your reference. Also, state and local laws do not prohibit an adult from having a concealed firearm in their home or place of business."

Here is the statement posted on the OCSD website shortly after the notice of rehearing:

"The Peruta v. County of San Diego panel decision has been withdrawn by a decision to rehear the case en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. New applicants, and those applicants currently in process, will be required to articulate their safety concerns and provide supporting documentation in accordance with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s (OCSD) Policy 218. Each application will be evaluated individually based on the merits of the applicant’s good cause statement and the totality of their circumstances. CCW Licenses issued under the previous Peruta standard of good cause are lawful and will not be recalled. Current licensees may be required to provide supplemental information and documentation in support of their good cause statement when they attempt to renew their CCW license. All renewal applications are subject to the legal standards at the time of renewal. Prospective applicants are encouraged to attend their scheduled appointments and submit their CCW applications for consideration. Applications approved after Thursday, March 26, 2015, are subject to the good cause requirement in OCSD Policy 218."

http://www.labarberalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1749999.html
Add a comment...

The challenges defense attorneys struggle with representing those accused of crime are laid out in this chronology of how the executive branch sometimes behaves.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2015/03/scott_dekraai_seal_beach_salon_murder_tony_rackauckas_district_attorney.php
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
"In other words, over 100 million cell phone customers can be tracked and targeted by whatever companies or organizations get to see that data, no matter what browser settings they use."

http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2014/11/04/verizon-att-supercookie-block-tracking/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Orange County Sheriff’s Department Announces
Results of DUI ‘Court Sting’ Operation

SANTA ANA, California (June 10, 2014) – Two individuals were arrested on Monday, June 9, 2014 during an undercover ‘Court Sting’ operation at the Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach. 

Deputies from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department targeted suspected DUI drivers who had been told by a judge not to drive and/or who had been previously notified their license was suspended for DUI. Offenders were followed by deputies from courtrooms to their vehicles to ensure that they were not driving. While some offenders complied with the law and had alternate means of transportation, two individuals proceeded to get behind the wheel and drive away from the court house. 

Those who chose to drive were stopped by waiting deputies in the area. The two individuals were arrested on a misdemeanor charge for driving on a suspended license and their vehicles were impounded for thirty days. They were then cited and released at the scene.

Those arrested could face additional jail time, long driver license suspensions, along with other financial hits including attorney fees, court costs, lost time at work, and the potential loss of job or job prospects. When family, friends and co-workers find out, violators can also face tremendous personal embarrassment and humiliation.

DUI ‘Court Sting’ stakeout operations, along with regularly scheduled high-visibility DUI enforcement, serve as a proven deterrent to drunk driving by keeping impaired drivers off the road and heightening awareness among the public of the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. 

This special DUI operation was funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Police, Sheriff and the CHP encourage all motorists to help make your community safer and report drunk drivers by calling 9-1-1.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded